§ The result
AmazingHiring leads Moonhub on 6 of the 7 criteria.
AmazingHiring scores 37 and Moonhub 30 under rubric v1.0 — a 7-point gap inside the Sourcing cohort. AmazingHiring leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Moonhub is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 AmazingHiring leads is Bias Audit Transparency, AmazingHiring 22 to Moonhub 18. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (AmazingHiring 52, Moonhub 38) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (AmazingHiring 50, Moonhub 40), the second being 23% of the weighted advantage AmazingHiring holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
Vendor profile
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
AmazingHiring and Moonhub are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Moonhub is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Moonhub 40
1.5 weighted points to AmazingHiring
12% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Moonhub 22
1.3 weighted points to AmazingHiring
8% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Moonhub 38
1.1 weighted points to AmazingHiring
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Moonhub 30
1.0 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Moonhub 25
0.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Moonhub 18
0.7 weighted points to AmazingHiring
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +6.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +6.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 18 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 48 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 22 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 30 (F) | +7 | +6.4 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub 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