§ The result
Darwinbox leads Radancy by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Darwinbox, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Radancy, filed under Sourcing, on 41, 5 points apart. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Darwinbox and Radancy, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Darwinbox holds, headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation, settle the total. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Darwinbox 60, Radancy 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 67% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Radancy 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. Only Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Radancy 42
3.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Radancy 20
1.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Radancy 28
0.3 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Radancy 57
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Radancy 36
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 20 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +4.7 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy 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