Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Pillar
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
Pillar
Pillar (now "AI Interview Companion by Employ") is an interview intelligence platform that records and transcribes job interviews, generates AI interview guides and highlight clips, and surfaces candidate insights and interviewer-coaching recommendations.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
HackerEarth leads Pillar by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerEarth, filed under Assessment, finishes on 46 and Pillar, filed under Screening, 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 Pillar on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 55, Pillar 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth6
- Pillar1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Pillar under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Pillar |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight37% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Pillar422.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight52% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Pillar331.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight67% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Pillar451.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight80% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Pillar481.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight88% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Pillar500.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight96% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Pillar380.5 weighted points to Pillar
- 7
FRIA Support
15% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Pillar300.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.1 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 +6.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Pillar, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Pillar | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 42 | +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 | 45 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 40F | +6 | +6.0 |
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 | Pillar | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 12 | 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; Pillar has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Pillar, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pillar 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.