§ The result
Darwinbox leads Intervue.io on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Darwinbox (ATS-integrated) opens a 15-point lead on Intervue.io (Video interview), 46 to 31. Darwinbox leads every one of the 7 criteria, Intervue.io none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Darwinbox 55 to Intervue.io 54. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Darwinbox 60, Intervue.io 28 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox 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
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Intervue.io under Video interview 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. Only Intervue.io is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Intervue.io |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | IN |
| Founded | 2015 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Intervue.io 28
6.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Intervue.io 38
3.0 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Intervue.io 12
2.9 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Intervue.io 22
1.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Intervue.io 30
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Intervue.io 50
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Intervue.io 54
0.1 weighted points to Darwinbox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +14.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Intervue.io.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Intervue.io | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 28 | +32 | +6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 12 | +16 | +2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 22 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 31 (F) | +15 | +14.8 |
§ 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 | Intervue.io | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 30 | 7 | Sources 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; Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Intervue.io sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Intervue.io 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