§ 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.
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
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.
§ The record
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Oleeo under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| 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.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Oleeo 40
3.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Oleeo 30
1.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Oleeo 25
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Oleeo 45
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Oleeo 40
0.9 weighted points to Oleeo
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Oleeo 55
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Oleeo 55
0.1 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.
| 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% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +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.
§ Where next