This is not a way to evaluate programmers. This is taking the stupidity of the white board programming challenges and injecting it with steroids.
This is just another step down the path towards the commoditization and lower status of programmers.
Software development is an art, as well as a science, and a good engineer is able to architect systems, even small ones, and is able to comprehend the interaction of several modules of code.
Not bang out some crap that produces the correct results in a very narrow challenge.
Never mind that hackerrank is poorly implemented- it has numerous bugs (because it was clearly written by the kind of people who think hacker rank is a good idea- those who think speed is paramount over quality[1]) Numerous times it would not take submissions that were pasted into the editor (I used an external editor, Atom, because the syntax highlighting was correct for my language). It is limited in its languages and finicky in them. The errors are often incorrect, resulting in the rejection of working code. etc. etc.
But even if hacker rank were well implemented it is measuring only two things- speed and whether the output meets the criteria set by the creator of the test. This output criteria can often be wrong or more narrow than correct results.
And speed of banging out lines of code is not a measure of a programmer.
So, use this test and you'll get the people who don't understand software engineering, lack significant experience but can produce a lot of code quickly.
But not elegant systems... and you'll be slower to market and less nimble as a result.
[1] It isn't, not even in a startup. Speed to market is about getting a working product to market. This is slowed down by poorly engineered messes that don't work.