§ The result
HackerEarth leads Intervue.io on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerEarth (Assessment) opens a 15-point lead on Intervue.io (Video interview), 46 to 31. HackerEarth leads every one of the 7 criteria, Intervue.io none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, HackerEarth 56 to Intervue.io 54. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HackerEarth 55, Intervue.io 28, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HackerEarth
HackerEarth is a technical-hiring platform that auto-scores coding assessments under AI proctoring, runs FaceCode live coding interviews with AI-generated summaries, and offers OnScreen, an AI video-avatar interviewer that scores candidates against a fixed rubric.
Vendor profile
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
§ The record
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Intervue.io under Video interview AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | HackerEarth | Intervue.io |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2012 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Intervue.io 28
5.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Intervue.io 12
4.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Intervue.io 38
2.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Intervue.io 22
1.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Intervue.io 30
1.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Intervue.io 50
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Intervue.io 54
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +15.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Intervue.io.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Intervue.io | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 28 | +27 | +5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 12 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 22 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 31 (F) | +15 | +15.4 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | HackerEarth | Intervue.io | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Intervue.io sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 76 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Intervue.io last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next