Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs UKG
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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
2 points separate HackerEarth and UKG.
HackerEarth (Assessment) edges UKG (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 44. HackerEarth leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while UKG leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 55, UKG 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 41% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth5
- UKG2
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 48
- 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 is filed under Assessment AI, UKG under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HackerEarth is in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2020 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight31% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55UKG481.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight51% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35UKG300.9 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight65% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52UKG560.6 weighted points to UKG
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight76% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56UKG520.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight86% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42UKG380.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight96% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32UKG350.4 weighted points to UKG
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57UKG550.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 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 +2.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus UKG, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 44F | +2 | +2.4 |
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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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.