§ The result
3 points separate HackerEarth and Wonderlic.
HackerEarth holds a 3-point edge over Wonderlic under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of HackerEarth: HackerEarth is ahead on Data Governance Disclosure and Wonderlic on Bias Audit Transparency. Wonderlic takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (HackerEarth 35, Wonderlic 48), 100% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Data Governance Disclosure, HackerEarth 52 to Wonderlic 38.
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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
HackerEarth and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Wonderlic 48
2.3 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Wonderlic 38
2.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Wonderlic 33
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Wonderlic 25
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Wonderlic 52
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Wonderlic 52
0.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Wonderlic 55
0.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 43 (F) | +3 | +3.1 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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.
§ Where next