Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Sova Assessment
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
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
2 points separate Sova Assessment and HackerEarth.
Sova Assessment holds a 2-point edge over HackerEarth under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Sova Assessment leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while HackerEarth leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 2 are level. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 32, Sova Assessment 40 — and at a 15% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth2
- Sova Assessment3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- FRIA Support32 vs 40
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% 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 Sova Assessment are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2015 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight48% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Sova Assessment401.2 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight70% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Sova Assessment380.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 3
Customer Documentation
8% weight86% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Sova Assessment620.4 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight95% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Sova Assessment400.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Sova Assessment550.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Sova Assessment, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 48F | -2 | -1.8 |
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 | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 2 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 8 | 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; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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.