§ The result
HackerRank leads Pulsifi on all 7 criteria.
The Assessment cohort pairing of HackerRank and Pulsifi comes out 55 to 33 under rubric v1.0, a 22-point lead for HackerRank. Of the 7 criteria Pulsifi wins none, and the narrowest lead HackerRank holds is on Human Oversight Design, HackerRank 60 to Pulsifi 55. The advantage HackerRank holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HackerRank 68, Pulsifi 20, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points HackerRank gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
§ The record
HackerRank and Pulsifi are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerRank | Pulsifi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2009 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerRank 68 · Pulsifi 20
8.6 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerRank 60 · Pulsifi 30
6.0 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerRank 55 · Pulsifi 40
2.3 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerRank 45 · Pulsifi 28
2.0 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerRank 35 · Pulsifi 25
1.5 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerRank 62 · Pulsifi 46
1.3 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerRank 60 · Pulsifi 55
0.6 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +22.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +22 beside that +22.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerRank minus Pulsifi.
| Category | Weight | HackerRank | Pulsifi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 30 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 20 | +48 | +8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 28 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 46 | +16 | +1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 33 (F) | +22 | +22.3 |
§ 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 | Pulsifi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | 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 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 26 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HackerRank has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 7 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerRank last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pulsifi 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