§ 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.
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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
HackerEarth and Sapia.ai are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| 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.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Sapia.ai 52
3.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Sapia.ai 70
3.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Sapia.ai 62
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Sapia.ai 50
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Sapia.ai 62
0.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Sapia.ai 35
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Sapia.ai 62
0.4 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.
| 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% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -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.
§ Where next