§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Darwinbox by 11 points.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sits 11 points above Darwinbox under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 46 — with Juicebox (PeopleGPT) filed under Sourcing and Darwinbox under ATS-integrated. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Juicebox (PeopleGPT): Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Darwinbox on Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 28, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 75% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 4 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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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.
| Record | Darwinbox | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
10.1 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
2.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
1.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35
0.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
0.3 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 84 | -56 | -10.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 55 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 57 (F) | -11 | -11.0 |
§ 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 4 | 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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