§ 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.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
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.
§ The record
HackerEarth and TestDome are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| 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.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · TestDome 15
3.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · TestDome 40
3.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · TestDome 30
1.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · TestDome 28
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · TestDome 52
0.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · TestDome 50
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · TestDome 60
0.2 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.
| 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% | 46 (F) | 37 (F) | +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.
§ Where next