§ The result
Criteria leads Darwinbox on all 7 criteria.
Criteria scores 53 and Darwinbox 46 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Criteria leads every one of the 7 criteria, Darwinbox none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Criteria 56 to Darwinbox 55. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Criteria 48, Darwinbox 28) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Criteria holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank 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
Criteria 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 Criteria is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Criteria | Darwinbox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2006 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Criteria 48 · Darwinbox 28
3.6 weighted points to Criteria
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Criteria 68 · Darwinbox 60
1.6 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Criteria 42 · Darwinbox 35
0.8 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Criteria 62 · Darwinbox 58
0.6 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Criteria 32 · Darwinbox 30
0.3 weighted points to Criteria
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Criteria 60 · Darwinbox 57
0.2 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Criteria 56 · Darwinbox 55
0.1 weighted points to Criteria
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Criteria minus Darwinbox.
| Category | Weight | Criteria | Darwinbox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 28 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 46 (F) | +7 | +7.3 |
§ 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 | Criteria | 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% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 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 Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Criteria last reviewed
- June 7, 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