Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Pinpoint
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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
Pinpoint leads HackerEarth on all 7 criteria.
Pinpoint sits 11 points above HackerEarth under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 46 — with Pinpoint filed under Screening and HackerEarth under Assessment. Pinpoint is ahead of HackerEarth on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at HackerEarth 32 to Pinpoint 38. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HackerEarth 55, Pinpoint 72, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth0
- Pinpoint7
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 72
- 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, Pinpoint under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | JE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight31% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Pinpoint723.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight54% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Pinpoint682.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight65% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Pinpoint421.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight76% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Pinpoint521.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight85% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Pinpoint641.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight93% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Pinpoint380.9 weighted points to Pinpoint
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Pinpoint660.7 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Pinpoint, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 72 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 68 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 57F | -11 | -10.8 |
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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 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 Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint 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.