§ The result
1 point separates HackerRank and Plum.
Within the Assessment cohort, HackerRank edges Plum by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 55 to 54. HackerRank leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Plum leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Plum — HackerRank 68, Plum 83, on an 18% weight — which is 97% of the weighted advantage Plum 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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
§ The record
HackerRank and Plum are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerRank | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2009 | 2012 |
§ 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 · Plum 83
2.7 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerRank 45 · Plum 36
1.1 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerRank 35 · Plum 28
1.1 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerRank 60 · Plum 52
1.0 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerRank 60 · Plum 58
0.4 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerRank 55 · Plum 54
0.1 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerRank 62 · Plum 63
0.1 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 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 +0.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerRank minus Plum.
| Category | Weight | HackerRank | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 83 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 36 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 63 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 54 (F) | +1 | +0.9 |
§ 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 | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 15 | 4 | 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerRank last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum 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