§ The result
2 points separate Workable and HackerEarth.
Workable (ATS-integrated) edges HackerEarth (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46. Workable leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while HackerEarth leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 2 are level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, Workable 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Workable under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerEarth | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Workable 42
1.3 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Workable 25
1.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Workable 58
0.9 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Workable 62
0.7 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Workable 56
0.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.0 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 -1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.7 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
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 Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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