§ The result
Plum takes the total, Darwinbox takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Plum, filed under Assessment, finishes on 54 and Darwinbox, filed under ATS-integrated, on 46, 8 points apart. Darwinbox leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Plum, yet Plum takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Darwinbox 28, Plum 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 94% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 3 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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Plum under Assessment 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 Plum is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | CA |
| Founded | 2015 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Plum 83
9.9 weighted points to Plum
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Plum 54
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Plum 63
0.5 weighted points to Plum
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Plum 58
0.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Plum 52
0.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Plum 28
0.3 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Plum 36
0.1 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Plum.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 83 | -55 | -9.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 63 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -8.8 |
§ 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 | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 15 | 4 | 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum 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