§ The result
Harver takes the total, HackerRank takes more of the criteria.
Within the Assessment cohort, Harver edges HackerRank by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 56 to 55. HackerRank leads more of the criteria than Harver — 3 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Harver leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Harver. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerRank 68, Harver 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 68% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HackerRank
HackerRank is a technical skills assessment platform for developer hiring that uses coding tests, interviews, and AI-based features (question generation, ML plagiarism/AI-code detection, and image-analysis proctoring) to evaluate candidates.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
§ The record
HackerRank and Harver 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, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerRank | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | NL |
| Founded | 2009 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerRank 68 · Harver 80
2.2 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerRank 60 · Harver 50
1.2 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerRank 60 · Harver 65
1.0 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerRank 45 · Harver 40
0.6 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerRank 62 · Harver 60
0.2 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerRank minus Harver.
| Category | Weight | HackerRank | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 65 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 80 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 56 (F) | -1 | -1.2 |
§ 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 | HackerRank | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerRank has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerRank last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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