§ The result
Ashby leads Arctic Shores by 10 points.
Ashby sits 10 points above Arctic Shores under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 46 — with Ashby filed under ATS-integrated and Arctic Shores under Assessment. Ashby leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Arctic Shores leads 1, including Customer Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Ashby 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
Vendor profile
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.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Ashby under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Arctic Shores is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Ashby |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Ashby 62
4.9 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Ashby 63
2.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Ashby 42
1.4 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Ashby 42
1.1 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Ashby 62
0.7 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Ashby 58
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Ashby 63
0.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 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 -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Ashby.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Ashby | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 63 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 62 | -27 | -4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 63 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -10.7 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Ashby | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 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 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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