We performed a comparison between DarwinBox and IBM Kenexa based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Talent Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In our company, we use DarwinBox to maintain the data of our employees and for recruitment purposes."
"The solution that we used previously was very complex. As a result, without referring to the manuals and consulting an expert, it was difficult for a newly hired employee to navigate the platform. However, this is not the case with Darwinbox. It has a very intuitive user interface, and anyone can use it and implement it without having to use a guide or a walk through process. It's very simple."
"The most valuable features of the solution are organogram and position-based mapping."
"The most valuable features are that we can upload documents and download them on demand."
"It is extremely user friendly. It is very flexible in managing recruitment, especially when you have thousands of applicants as we did. We easily had over 20,000 applicants within a year for some of our positions, so it made it very easy to manage a large application pool. It was very easy to customize by recruiter preference. When you open up someone's profile to see their experience, education, or other things, you can customize that for yourself. It was flexible in that, and each recruiter could set up their preferences. It didn't have to be set up so that everyone had to have the same landing platform, which was very helpful. As someone who trained other HR people on how to use the system, it was very easy to pick up and learn."
"The ease of scaling is one of BrassRing's biggest strengths, making it a trusted choice for large companies."
"IBM Kenexa is fairly stable. We don't have any downtime."
"Like most software, it has a base version, the vanilla, out-of-the-box version, and customization is required to match it to the unique processes of each company. The Darwinbox team seems to be having difficulty with the customization process. They have to be a little more mature to customize it as per every company's need."
"The solution's API integration with third-party applications should be improved."
"DarwinBox is not a stable solution...DarwinBox is not a scalable solution."
"It needs to update its reporting and analytics tools."
"The reporting tool is helpful, but it is not the easiest to train on or is not as understandable for other HR pros. Their Workbench site, which is the administrator site that you use to update your website, is not user-friendly. When updates are required, it is not that easy to manage because Workbench is not user friendly. It required more work from the admins. They have Workbench training, which actually was very unhelpful. It took eight hours to complete, and it was not very helpful. Their customer service when it comes specifically to their Workbench site is not helpful."
"I would like to have a better and more user-friendly interface."
"I would not recommend IBM Kenexa to others."
DarwinBox is ranked 21st in Talent Management with 3 reviews while IBM Kenexa is ranked 22nd in Talent Management with 30 reviews. DarwinBox is rated 6.4, while IBM Kenexa is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of DarwinBox writes "Has a very intuitive user interface and a fairly smooth implementation process". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Kenexa writes "Suitable for larger-scale companies aiming to streamline and automate their processes digitally". DarwinBox is most compared with SAP SuccessFactors, ZingHR, PeopleStrong , Workday and Ramco HCM, whereas IBM Kenexa is most compared with HR Software Solutions, SAP SuccessFactors and Workday. See our DarwinBox vs. IBM Kenexa report.
See our list of best Talent Management vendors.
We monitor all Talent Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
