The result

Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, HackerEarth takes more of the criteria.

Both filed under Assessment, Pymetrics (Harver Games) and HackerEarth come out 56 and 46 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Pymetrics (Harver Games). HackerEarth leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), yet Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 35, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 66% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

Criteria won

7 criteria

  • HackerEarth4
  • Pymetrics (Harver Games)3
Widest raw gap
Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 80
Heaviest weighted swing
Bias Audit Transparency18% weight

Keep this comparison

Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.

Sent once, with links to turn on alerts for either vendor. No list.

The record

Categories, scope and company facts.

HackerEarth and Pymetrics (Harver Games) are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.

RecordHackerEarthPymetrics (Harver Games)
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20122013

What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. Bias Audit Transparency

    18% weight54% of the movement so far

    HackerEarth35
    Pymetrics (Harver Games)80

    8.1 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)

  2. Article 11 Technical Documentation

    20% weight74% of the movement so far

    HackerEarth55
    Pymetrics (Harver Games)70

    3.0 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)

  3. Data Governance Disclosure

    15% weight82% of the movement so far

    HackerEarth52
    Pymetrics (Harver Games)60

    1.2 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)

  4. FRIA Support

    15% weight89% of the movement so far

    HackerEarth32
    Pymetrics (Harver Games)25

    1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth

  5. Post-Market Monitoring

    12% weight94% of the movement so far

    HackerEarth42
    Pymetrics (Harver Games)35

    0.8 weighted points to HackerEarth

  6. Human Oversight Design

    12% weight99% of the movement so far

    HackerEarth56
    Pymetrics (Harver Games)50

    0.7 weighted points to HackerEarth

  7. Customer Documentation

    8% weight100% of the movement so far

    HackerEarth57
    Pymetrics (Harver Games)55

    0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.5.

Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is HackerEarth minus Pymetrics (Harver Games), coloured for whichever of the two it favours.

CategoryWeightHackerEarthPymetrics (Harver Games)Δ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5570-15-3.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%3580-45-8.1
FRIA Support15%3225+7+1.1
Data Governance Disclosure15%5260-8-1.2
Human Oversight Design12%5650+6+0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%4235+7+0.8
Customer Documentation8%5755+2+0.2
Total100%46F56F-10-9.5

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.

CriterionWeightHackerEarthPymetrics (Harver Games)
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%51Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%41Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain01—
Data Governance Disclosure15%60Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%80Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain11—
Customer Documentation8%51Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
All criteria100%345Sources on the vendor's own domain92Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain

HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
HackerEarth last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Pymetrics (Harver Games) last reviewed
May 21, 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