Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs TestDome
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
TestDome
TestDome sells pay-per-candidate online skills tests for coding, Excel and more than 100 other skills. The tests are scored automatically, and open-ended answers can be scored by AI. AI analysis of webcam and screen proctoring recordings flags possible cheating, and a live code-interview tool is included.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
HackerEarth leads TestDome by 9 points.
HackerEarth scores 46 and TestDome 37 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. TestDome takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 6 for HackerEarth, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HackerEarth 35, TestDome 15, 18% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth6
- TestDome1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 15
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and TestDome are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | TestDome |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | HR |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight37% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35TestDome153.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight68% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55TestDome403.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight83% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42TestDome301.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight89% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32TestDome280.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight94% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56TestDome520.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight98% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52TestDome500.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57TestDome600.2 weighted points to TestDome
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus TestDome, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | TestDome | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 15 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 37F | +9 | +9.2 |
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 | TestDome | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | 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; TestDome has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for TestDome, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TestDome 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.