§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI leads Darwinbox by 10 points.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Workday Recruiting AI and Darwinbox come out 56 and 46 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Workday Recruiting AI. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Workday Recruiting AI, with 1 level: Workday Recruiting AI is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Darwinbox on Data Governance Disclosure. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 28, Workday Recruiting AI 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 56% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI holds across the 5 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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Darwinbox and Workday Recruiting AI are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Darwinbox is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Darwinbox | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | IN | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
5.8 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
2.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
1.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.8 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.6 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
0.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 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 -9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 70 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 60 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 65 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 65 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -9.9 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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