§ The result
Darwinbox leads AmazingHiring on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Darwinbox, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and AmazingHiring, filed under Sourcing, on 37, 9 points apart. AmazingHiring is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Darwinbox takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Post-Market Monitoring, AmazingHiring 33 to Darwinbox 35. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — AmazingHiring 35, Darwinbox 60 — and at a 20% weight it carries 57% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
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
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Darwinbox under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Darwinbox is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Darwinbox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2011 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Darwinbox 60
5.0 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Darwinbox 58
1.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Darwinbox 28
1.1 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Darwinbox 55
0.8 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Darwinbox 57
0.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Darwinbox 35
0.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Darwinbox.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Darwinbox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 60 | -25 | -5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 28 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 46 (F) | -9 | -8.8 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | Darwinbox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 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