§ The result
Harver leads Darwinbox by 10 points.
Harver, filed under Assessment, comes out 10 points above Darwinbox, filed under ATS-integrated: 56 against 46 under rubric v1.0. Darwinbox takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Harver, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Darwinbox 28, Harver 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 78% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 5 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
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Harver 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 Harver is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Harver |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | NL |
| Founded | 2015 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Harver 80
9.4 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Harver 65
1.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Harver 35
0.8 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Harver 50
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Harver 40
0.6 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Harver 55
0.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Harver 60
0.2 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Harver.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Harver | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 65 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 80 | -52 | -9.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -10.9 |
§ 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 | Harver | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 0 | 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; Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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