§ The result
Darwinbox leads Feenyx by 6 points.
Darwinbox scores 46 and Feenyx 40 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Darwinbox leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Feenyx leads 2, including Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 60, Feenyx 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 58% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Feenyx under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Feenyx 42
3.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Feenyx 50
1.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Feenyx 25
0.8 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Feenyx 25
0.5 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Feenyx 58
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Feenyx 38
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Feenyx 55
0.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +6 | +5.5 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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