§ The result
1 point separates Darwinbox and Cangrade.
Darwinbox (ATS-integrated) edges Cangrade (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45. Cangrade and Darwinbox each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Darwinbox holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Cangrade 52, Darwinbox 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 63% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade 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, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Darwinbox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2014 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Darwinbox 60
1.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Darwinbox 28
1.3 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Darwinbox 58
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Darwinbox 57
0.4 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Darwinbox 35
0.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Darwinbox 55
0.1 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Darwinbox.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Darwinbox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -1 | -0.8 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Darwinbox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade last reviewed
- August 2, 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