§ The result
Dayforce leads Darwinbox on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Dayforce and Darwinbox come out 57 and 46 under rubric v1.0, 11 points in favour of Dayforce. Dayforce is ahead of Darwinbox on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Data Governance Disclosure at Darwinbox 58 to Dayforce 63. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Darwinbox 60, Dayforce 74, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 24% of the weighted advantage Dayforce holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Dayforce
Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and analytics.
§ The record
Darwinbox and Dayforce are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Darwinbox | Dayforce |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 1992 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Dayforce 74
2.8 weighted points to Dayforce
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Dayforce 42
2.5 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Dayforce 68
1.6 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Dayforce 40
1.5 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Dayforce 47
1.4 weighted points to Dayforce
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Dayforce 70
1.0 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Dayforce 63
0.8 weighted points to Dayforce
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Dayforce.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Dayforce | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 74 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 63 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 68 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 47 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 70 | -13 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 57 (F) | -11 | -11.6 |
§ 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 | Darwinbox | Dayforce | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Dayforce has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Dayforce, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Dayforce last reviewed
- August 2, 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