§ The result
HackerEarth leads Pulsifi on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, HackerEarth and Pulsifi come out 46 and 33 under rubric v1.0, 13 points in favour of HackerEarth. Of the 7 criteria Pulsifi wins none, and the narrowest lead HackerEarth holds is on Human Oversight Design, HackerEarth 56 to Pulsifi 55. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HackerEarth 55, Pulsifi 30, 20% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth builds across the 7 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
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
§ The record
HackerEarth and Pulsifi are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | HackerEarth | Pulsifi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2012 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Pulsifi 30
5.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Pulsifi 20
2.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Pulsifi 40
1.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Pulsifi 28
1.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Pulsifi 25
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Pulsifi 46
0.9 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Pulsifi 55
0.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Pulsifi.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Pulsifi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 30 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 46 | +11 | +0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 33 (F) | +13 | +13.2 |
§ 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 | Pulsifi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 26 | 7 | 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; Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 72 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pulsifi last reviewed
- September 25, 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