Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Moonhub
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
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
HackerEarth leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerEarth (Assessment) opens a 16-point lead on Moonhub (Sourcing), 46 to 30. HackerEarth takes all 7 criteria and Moonhub none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, HackerEarth 32 to Moonhub 25. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HackerEarth 55, Moonhub 30, 20% weight), is only 32% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth7
- Moonhub0
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 30
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2022 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight32% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Moonhub305.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight51% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Moonhub183.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight66% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Moonhub222.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight78% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Moonhub401.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight87% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Moonhub381.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight94% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Moonhub251.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Moonhub481.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Moonhub, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 30 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 18 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 22 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 38 | +19 | +1.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 30F | +16 | +15.8 |
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 | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 7 | 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; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub 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.