Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Recruiterflow
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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
HackerEarth leads Recruiterflow by 10 points.
HackerEarth sits 10 points above Recruiterflow under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 36 — with HackerEarth filed under Assessment and Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Recruiterflow on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 55, Recruiterflow 33) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 43% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth6
- Recruiterflow1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 33
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight42% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Recruiterflow334.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight72% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Recruiterflow183.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight84% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Recruiterflow441.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight94% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Recruiterflow331.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight97% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Recruiterflow300.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight99% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Recruiterflow580.2 weighted points to Recruiterflow
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Recruiterflow560.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 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 +9.9.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Recruiterflow, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 33 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 18 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 36F | +10 | +9.9 |
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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 6 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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.