Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
HackerEarth vs Xobin
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
Xobin
Xobin is a talent-assessment platform that sells skills, coding, communication and psychometric tests alongside generative-AI answer scoring (AI Evaluate), AI-led interviews, AI proctoring and NURA, an AI recruiting agent that parses resumes, interviews candidates and builds shortlists.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
4 points separate Xobin and HackerEarth.
Within the Assessment cohort, Xobin edges HackerEarth by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 50 to 46. HackerEarth takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Xobin, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. The advantage Xobin holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HackerEarth 35, Xobin 43, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 32% of the weighted points Xobin gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- HackerEarth1
- Xobin6
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency35 vs 43
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% 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 Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | HackerEarth | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2012 | 2016 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight29% of the movement so far
HackerEarth35Xobin431.4 weighted points to Xobin
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight57% of the movement so far
HackerEarth55Xobin621.4 weighted points to Xobin
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight72% of the movement so far
HackerEarth52Xobin570.8 weighted points to Xobin
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight81% of the movement so far
HackerEarth42Xobin380.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight90% of the movement so far
HackerEarth32Xobin350.4 weighted points to Xobin
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight95% of the movement so far
HackerEarth56Xobin580.2 weighted points to Xobin
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
HackerEarth57Xobin600.2 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Xobin, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 50F | -4 | -4.0 |
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 | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | 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; Xobin has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Xobin last reviewed
- September 25, 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
Scored against