Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Pulsifi
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
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
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.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth7
- Pulsifi0
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 30
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and Pulsifi are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight38% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Pulsifi305.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight58% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Pulsifi202.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight72% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Pulsifi401.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight85% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Pulsifi281.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight92% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Pulsifi251.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight99% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Pulsifi460.9 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Pulsifi550.1 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 46F | 33F | +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.