§ The result
Darwinbox and HackerEarth tie at 46.
Darwinbox, filed under ATS-integrated, and HackerEarth, filed under Assessment, tie at 46 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Darwinbox leads 2 of the 7 criteria and HackerEarth 4, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Darwinbox 28, HackerEarth 35 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 4 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
HackerEarth
HackerEarth is a technical-hiring platform that auto-scores coding assessments under AI proctoring, runs FaceCode live coding interviews with AI-generated summaries, and offers OnScreen, an AI video-avatar interviewer that scores candidates against a fixed rubric.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HackerEarth under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · HackerEarth 35
1.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
20% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · HackerEarth 55
1.0 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · HackerEarth 52
0.9 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · HackerEarth 42
0.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · HackerEarth 32
0.3 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · HackerEarth 56
0.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 46 (F) | - | -0.6 |
§ 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 | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 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 | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerEarth 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