Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Test Partnership
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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
4 points separate Test Partnership and HackerEarth.
Within the Assessment cohort, Test Partnership edges HackerEarth by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 50 to 46. HackerEarth takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Test Partnership, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, Test Partnership 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth1
- Test Partnership6
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 48
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and Test Partnership are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight40% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Test Partnership482.3 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight59% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Test Partnership331.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight72% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Test Partnership570.8 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight82% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Test Partnership360.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 5
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight89% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Test Partnership570.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight96% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Test Partnership620.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Test Partnership580.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Test Partnership, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 36 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 50F | -4 | -3.6 |
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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 26 | 6 | Sources 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; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership last reviewed
- September 25, 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.