§ The result
Pinpoint leads Darwinbox on all 7 criteria.
Pinpoint sits 11 points above Darwinbox under rubric v1.0, 57 against 46, with both filed under ATS-integrated. Pinpoint is ahead of Darwinbox on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at Darwinbox 30 to Pinpoint 38. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 35, Pinpoint 52) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Darwinbox 28, Pinpoint 42), 22% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint builds across the 7 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
Darwinbox and Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | JE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Pinpoint 42
2.5 weighted points to Pinpoint
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Pinpoint 72
2.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Pinpoint 52
2.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Pinpoint 68
1.5 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Pinpoint 38
1.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Pinpoint 64
1.1 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Pinpoint 66
0.7 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 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 -11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 72 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 68 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 64 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 57 (F) | -11 | -11.5 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
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 Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint last reviewed
- July 17, 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