Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Jobma
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
Jobma
AI video interviewing platform offering one-way (pre-recorded), live, and agentic AI interviews with automated transcription and AI scoring of candidate video, audio, and written responses as recruiter decision-support.
Substantial gaps
Video interview
The result
Jobma leads HackerEarth on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Jobma (Video interview) edges HackerEarth (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46. Jobma leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so HackerEarth is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Jobma leads is Post-Market Monitoring, HackerEarth 42 to Jobma 44. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HackerEarth 35, Jobma 40, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 29% of the weighted advantage Jobma holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth0
- Jobma6
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 40
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Jobma under Video interview AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Jobma |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight29% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Jobma400.9 weighted points to Jobma
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight49% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Jobma560.6 weighted points to Jobma
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight64% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Jobma600.5 weighted points to Jobma
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight79% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Jobma350.4 weighted points to Jobma
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight92% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Jobma620.4 weighted points to Jobma
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Jobma440.2 weighted points to Jobma
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Jobma, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Jobma | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 49F | -3 | -3.1 |
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 | Jobma | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 17 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Jobma has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 21 for Jobma, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Jobma last reviewed
- July 17, 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.