Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs SHL
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
SHL
SHL is a global talent-assessment provider offering AI-scored cognitive ability, personality, behavioral, situational-judgement, coding, and video-interview assessments that score, rank, and recommend candidates for hiring and development decisions.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
SHL leads HackerEarth by 5 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts SHL on 51 and HackerEarth on 46, 5 points apart. SHL leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while HackerEarth leads 2, including FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, SHL 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 53% of the weighted advantage SHL holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth2
- SHL5
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 50
- 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 SHL are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | SHL |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1977 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight48% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35SHL502.7 weighted points to SHL
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight66% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55SHL601.0 weighted points to SHL
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight82% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52SHL580.9 weighted points to SHL
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight87% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32SHL300.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight91% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56SHL580.2 weighted points to SHL
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight96% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42SHL400.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57SHL600.2 weighted points to SHL
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus SHL, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | SHL | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 51F | -5 | -4.5 |
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 | SHL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 4 | 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; SHL has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for SHL, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- SHL 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
Scored against