Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Oleeo
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
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
HackerEarth leads Oleeo by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerEarth, filed under Assessment, finishes on 46 and Oleeo, filed under ATS-integrated, on 40, 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Oleeo on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 55, Oleeo 40 — and at a 20% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth6
- Oleeo1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 40
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% 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, Oleeo under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1995 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight39% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Oleeo403.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight58% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Oleeo301.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight71% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Oleeo251.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight85% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Oleeo451.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight96% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Oleeo400.9 weighted points to Oleeo
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Oleeo550.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Oleeo550.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.9.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Oleeo, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 40F | +6 | +5.9 |
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 | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 10 | 6 | 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; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
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 Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo 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.