Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Plum
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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Plum leads HackerEarth by 8 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Plum on 54 and HackerEarth on 46, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Plum: Plum is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and HackerEarth on Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 35, Plum 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 86% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth3
- Plum4
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 83
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and Plum are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight73% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Plum838.6 weighted points to Plum
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight79% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Plum360.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight84% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Plum580.6 weighted points to Plum
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight89% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Plum280.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight93% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Plum520.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Plum630.5 weighted points to Plum
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Plum540.3 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Plum, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 83 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 63 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 54F | -8 | -8.2 |
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 | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 4 | 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum 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
Scored against