§ The result
Darwinbox leads Willo by 5 points.
Darwinbox scores 46 and Willo 41 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Video interview cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Darwinbox: Darwinbox is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Willo on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 60, Willo 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 4 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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
§ The record
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Willo under Video interview 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 Willo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | IN | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Willo 38
4.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Willo 62
0.8 weighted points to Willo
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Willo 25
0.8 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Willo 53
0.8 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Willo 30
0.4 weighted points to Willo
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Willo 54
0.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Willo 36
0.1 weighted points to Willo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 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 +4.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Willo.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 38 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 53 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +4.8 |
§ 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 | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 5 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo 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