Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Paycom
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
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
4 points separate Paycom and HackerEarth.
Paycom (ATS-integrated) edges HackerEarth (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 50 to 46. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Paycom: Paycom is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and HackerEarth on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 55, Paycom 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 53% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth3
- Paycom4
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 68
- 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, Paycom under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 1998 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight45% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Paycom682.6 weighted points to Paycom
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight71% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Paycom621.5 weighted points to Paycom
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight80% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Paycom380.5 weighted points to Paycom
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight89% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Paycom380.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight94% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Paycom300.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Paycom600.2 weighted points to Paycom
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Paycom550.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Paycom, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 68 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 50F | -4 | -4.0 |
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 | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom last reviewed
- July 17, 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.