§ The result
HackerEarth leads Paradox by 5 points.
HackerEarth scores 46 and Paradox 41 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Scheduling cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Paradox on Bias Audit Transparency. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HackerEarth 55, Paradox 40, 20% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Paradox 40
3.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Paradox 50
2.7 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Paradox 25
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Paradox 45
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Paradox 45
1.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Paradox 35
0.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Paradox 50
0.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +4.9 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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