§ The result
HackerEarth and RippleMatch tie at 46.
HackerEarth (Assessment) and RippleMatch (Sourcing) tie at 46 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. HackerEarth leads 4 of the 7 criteria and RippleMatch 3, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, RippleMatch 53) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 90% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 3 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
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
§ The record
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, RippleMatch under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerEarth | RippleMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · RippleMatch 53
3.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · RippleMatch 46
1.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · RippleMatch 27
0.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · RippleMatch 37
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · RippleMatch 50
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · RippleMatch 60
0.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · RippleMatch 57
0.1 weighted points to RippleMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus RippleMatch.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | RippleMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 46 | +9 | +1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 53 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 27 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 37 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 46 (F) | - | -0.1 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 35 | 7 | Audit 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; RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 81 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RippleMatch 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