Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Qureos
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
HackerEarth leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
HackerEarth sits 13 points above Qureos under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 33 — with HackerEarth filed under Assessment and Qureos under Screening. HackerEarth leads every one of the 7 criteria, Qureos none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, HackerEarth 56 to Qureos 54. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 55, Qureos 28) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 41% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth7
- Qureos0
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 28
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2021 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight41% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Qureos285.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight72% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Qureos124.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight81% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Qureos441.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight89% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Qureos251.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight95% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Qureos350.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Qureos520.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Qureos540.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.3 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 +13.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Qureos, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 28 | +27 | +5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 12 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 33F | +13 | +13.3 |
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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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.