Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
ADP vs Ashby
ADP
ADP is an enterprise human capital management and payroll provider whose recruiting suite uses AI to parse, rank, and match job applicants via its Candidate Relevancy tool, ADP Assist generative-AI assistant/job-description generator, and skills intelligence.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Ashby leads ADP by 8 points.
Ashby finishes 8 points ahead of ADP under rubric v1.0, 56 to 48, both scored as ATS-integrated entries. ADP takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Ashby, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (ADP 46, Ashby 62, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- ADP1
- Ashby6
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency46 vs 62
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
ADP and Ashby are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | ADP | Ashby |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1949 | 2018 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight33% of the movement so far
ADP46Ashby622.9 weighted points to Ashby
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight57% of the movement so far
ADP28Ashby422.1 weighted points to Ashby
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight80% of the movement so far
ADP53Ashby632.0 weighted points to Ashby
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight90% of the movement so far
ADP55Ashby620.8 weighted points to Ashby
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight94% of the movement so far
ADP58Ashby630.4 weighted points to Ashby
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight98% of the movement so far
ADP45Ashby420.4 weighted points to ADP
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
ADP57Ashby580.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is ADP minus Ashby, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | ADP | Ashby | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 53 | 63 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 46 | 62 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 63 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 48F | 56F | -8 | -8.0 |
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 | ADP | Ashby | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
ADP has 23 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 23 for ADP, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- ADP last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Ashby 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
Scored against