§ The result
4 points separate Darwinbox and softgarden.
Under rubric v1.0, Darwinbox and softgarden finish 4 points apart, 46 to 42, as two ATS-integrated entries. Darwinbox and softgarden each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Darwinbox holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 60, softgarden 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 68% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 3 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Darwinbox and softgarden are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Darwinbox | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | DE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · softgarden 42
3.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · softgarden 22
1.1 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · softgarden 44
1.1 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · softgarden 54
0.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · softgarden 58
0.4 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · softgarden 58
0.1 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 22 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 44 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 42 (F) | +4 | +3.8 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden last reviewed
- September 25, 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