§ The result
HackerRank and iCIMS tie at 55.
HackerRank (Assessment) and iCIMS (ATS-integrated) tie at 55 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. HackerRank leads 3 of the 7 criteria and iCIMS 2, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerRank 35, iCIMS 38 — and at a 15% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage iCIMS 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
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
§ The record
HackerRank is filed under Assessment AI, iCIMS under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HackerRank is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerRank | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2009 | 2000 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 28% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerRank 35 · iCIMS 38
0.4 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerRank 60 · iCIMS 58
0.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerRank 45 · iCIMS 42
0.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerRank 60 · iCIMS 58
0.2 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerRank 55 · iCIMS 56
0.1 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +0.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 1.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerRank minus iCIMS.
| Category | Weight | HackerRank | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 68 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 55 (F) | - | +0.4 |
§ 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 | HackerRank | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 21 | 3 | 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; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerRank last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS 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