§ The result
Darwinbox leads Personio by 6 points.
Darwinbox finishes 6 points ahead of Personio under rubric v1.0, 46 to 40, both scored as ATS-integrated entries. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Darwinbox, with 1 level: Darwinbox is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Personio on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 60, Personio 40) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 58% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 5 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
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
§ The record
Darwinbox and Personio are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Darwinbox | Personio |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | DE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Personio 40
4.0 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Personio 48
1.6 weighted points to Personio
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Personio 52
0.9 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Personio 48
0.8 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Personio 50
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Personio 25
0.5 weighted points to Darwinbox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Personio.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Personio | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 40 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +6 | +5.3 |
§ 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 | Personio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 13 | 8 | 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; Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Personio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Personio, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 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