HomeCompareDarwinbox vs hackajob

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Darwinbox vs hackajob

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Darwinbox takes the total, hackajob takes more of the criteria.

Darwinbox (ATS-integrated) edges hackajob (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45. hackajob leads more of the criteria than Darwinbox — 3 to 1 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Darwinbox leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Darwinbox. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 28, hackajob 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 100% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 1 criterion it leads.

§ The record

Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, hackajob under Candidate sourcing 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.

RecordDarwinboxhackajob
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersINGB
Founded20152014

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 62% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Darwinbox 28 · hackajob 20

    1.4 weighted points to Darwinbox

  2. 12% weight · 77% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Darwinbox 35 · hackajob 38

    0.4 weighted points to hackajob

  3. 15% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Darwinbox 30 · hackajob 32

    0.3 weighted points to hackajob

  4. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Darwinbox 57 · hackajob 60

    0.2 weighted points to hackajob

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.3 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 +0.5.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Darwinbox minus hackajob.

CategoryWeightDarwinboxhackajobΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%6060--
Bias Audit Transparency18%2820+8+1.4
FRIA Support15%3032-2-0.3
Data Governance Disclosure15%5858--
Human Oversight Design12%5555--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3538-3-0.4
Customer Documentation8%5760-3-0.2
Total100%46 (F)45 (F)+1+0.5

§ 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.

CriterionWeightDarwinboxhackajob
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31—41Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain50Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%51Sources on the vendor's own domain80Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain61Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%247Sources on the vendor's own domain384Sources on the vendor's own domain

Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Darwinbox last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
hackajob 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.