Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Thomas International
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
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
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.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth3
- Thomas International4
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 43
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight40% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Thomas International431.4 weighted points to Thomas International
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight60% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Thomas International570.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight77% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Thomas International510.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight84% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Thomas International400.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight90% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Thomas International600.2 weighted points to Thomas International
- 6
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight96% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Thomas International540.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
FRIA Support
15% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Thomas International330.1 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 46F | 48F | -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.