Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads HackerEarth by 11 points.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sits 11 points above HackerEarth under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 46 — with Juicebox (PeopleGPT) filed under Sourcing and HackerEarth under Assessment. HackerEarth takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 76% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth2
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT)5
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 84
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2022 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight68% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Juicebox (PeopleGPT)848.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight80% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Juicebox (PeopleGPT)551.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight85% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Juicebox (PeopleGPT)500.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight90% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Juicebox (PeopleGPT)520.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight95% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Juicebox (PeopleGPT)560.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight98% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Juicebox (PeopleGPT)350.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Juicebox (PeopleGPT)600.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT), coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 84 | -49 | -8.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 57F | -11 | -10.3 |
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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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.