Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Turing
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
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
HackerEarth leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, HackerEarth and Turing come out 46 and 36 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of HackerEarth. HackerEarth is ahead of Turing on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at HackerEarth 35 to Turing 28. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 42, Turing 27) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (HackerEarth 55, Turing 42), 26% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth7
- Turing0
- Widest raw gap
- Post-Market Monitoring42 vs 27
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
HackerEarth and Turing are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2018 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight26% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Turing422.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight44% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Turing271.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight57% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Turing451.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight70% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Turing281.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight82% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Turing441.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight93% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Turing251.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Turing480.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Turing, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 42 | +13 | +2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 45 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 27 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 36F | +10 | +10.0 |
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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 8 | 7 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing 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.