Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Teamtailor
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
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
1 point separates Teamtailor and HackerEarth.
Teamtailor holds a 1-point edge over HackerEarth under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46, across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to HackerEarth and Teamtailor, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Teamtailor holds, headed by FRIA Support, settle the total. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 32, Teamtailor 42 — and at a 15% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth3
- Teamtailor3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- FRIA Support32 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight30% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Teamtailor421.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight51% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Teamtailor501.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight69% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Teamtailor300.9 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight87% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Teamtailor580.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight95% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Teamtailor620.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Teamtailor540.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Teamtailor, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 47F | -1 | -0.7 |
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 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
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 Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 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.