Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Sapia.ai
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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Sapia.ai leads HackerEarth on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, Sapia.ai and HackerEarth come out 56 and 46 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Sapia.ai. Sapia.ai is ahead of HackerEarth on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at HackerEarth 32 to Sapia.ai 35. The advantage Sapia.ai holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HackerEarth 35, Sapia.ai 52, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 30% of the weighted points Sapia.ai gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth0
- Sapia.ai7
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 52
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight30% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Sapia.ai523.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight60% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Sapia.ai703.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight75% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Sapia.ai621.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight84% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Sapia.ai501.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Sapia.ai620.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight96% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Sapia.ai350.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Sapia.ai620.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 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 -10.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Sapia.ai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 70 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 56F | -10 | -10.1 |
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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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.