§ The result
Darwinbox leads Alooba by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Darwinbox, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Alooba, filed under Assessment, on 38, 8 points apart. Darwinbox leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Alooba leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alooba 40, Darwinbox 60 — and at a 20% weight it carries 55% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Vendor profile
Darwinbox
Darwinbox is an enterprise HCM suite whose recruitment module uses Darwinbox Sense AI (now sold inside its Cortex agent platform) to parse resumes, stack-rank and recommend candidates with stated fit reasoning, run screening and shortlisting agents, and give candidates an assistant for job matching, interview details and FAQs.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Darwinbox 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 Alooba is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Darwinbox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | IN |
| Founded | 2019 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Darwinbox 60
4.0 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Darwinbox 58
1.9 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Darwinbox 28
1.1 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Darwinbox 30
0.3 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Darwinbox 35
0.1 weighted points to Alooba
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Darwinbox 57
0.1 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Darwinbox.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Darwinbox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 28 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 35 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 46 (F) | -8 | -7.1 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Darwinbox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Darwinbox 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