§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Darwinbox on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 10 points above Darwinbox under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 46 — with Sapia.ai filed under Assessment and Darwinbox under ATS-integrated. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria, Darwinbox none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Darwinbox 58 to Sapia.ai 62. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 28, Sapia.ai 52) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 40% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds 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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | AU |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Sapia.ai 52
4.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Sapia.ai 70
2.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Sapia.ai 50
1.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Sapia.ai 35
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Sapia.ai 62
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 70 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 52 | -24 | -4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -10.7 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai 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