§ The result
HackerRank leads Wonderlic on all 7 criteria.
HackerRank sits 12 points above Wonderlic under rubric v1.0, 55 against 43, with both filed under Assessment. HackerRank leads every one of the 7 criteria, Wonderlic none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, HackerRank 62 to Wonderlic 55. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HackerRank 68, Wonderlic 48, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 29% of the weighted advantage HackerRank holds across the 7 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
HackerRank and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2009 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerRank 68 · Wonderlic 48
3.6 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerRank 55 · Wonderlic 38
2.5 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerRank 60 · Wonderlic 52
1.6 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerRank 35 · Wonderlic 25
1.5 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerRank 45 · Wonderlic 33
1.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerRank 60 · Wonderlic 52
1.0 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerRank 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +12.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerRank minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | HackerRank | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 48 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 33 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 43 (F) | +12 | +12.2 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 9 | 6 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 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 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerRank last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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