§ The result
2 points separate Thomas International and HackerEarth.
Thomas International holds a 2-point edge over HackerEarth under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. HackerEarth takes 3 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 4 for Thomas International, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, Thomas International 43) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 56% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 4 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
Thomas International
Thomas International provides psychometric and aptitude assessments (behaviour/DISC, cognitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence) with an AI coaching layer, used for hiring, candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
HackerEarth and Thomas International 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 | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Thomas International 43
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Thomas International 51
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Thomas International 33
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.6 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 -1.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 51 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.5 |
§ 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 | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | 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; Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Thomas International 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.
§ Where next