§ The result
1 point separates Crosschq and Darwinbox.
Crosschq holds a 1-point edge over Darwinbox under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46, across the Screening and ATS-integrated cohorts. Darwinbox takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 4 for Crosschq, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Darwinbox — Crosschq 50, Darwinbox 60, on a 20% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
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
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, Darwinbox under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Crosschq is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | Darwinbox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2018 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · Darwinbox 60
2.0 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · Darwinbox 28
1.8 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · Darwinbox 55
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · Darwinbox 35
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · Darwinbox 57
0.4 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.6 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 +1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus Darwinbox.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | Darwinbox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 46 (F) | +1 | +1.6 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | Darwinbox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 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 Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq 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