Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Willo
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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
Substantial gaps
Video interview
The result
HackerEarth leads Willo by 5 points.
HackerEarth scores 46 and Willo 41 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Video interview cohorts. HackerEarth leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Willo leads 2, including Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 55, Willo 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 54% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth5
- Willo2
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation55 vs 38
- 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, Willo under Video interview AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2018 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight47% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Willo383.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight62% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Willo251.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight75% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Willo300.9 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight85% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Willo620.7 weighted points to Willo
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight95% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Willo360.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Willo540.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Willo530.1 weighted points to Willo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Willo, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 53 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 41F | +5 | +5.4 |
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 | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo 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.