Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Arena Analytics vs Moonhub
Arena Analytics
Arena scores job applicants, mainly for healthcare and senior-living employers, on how likely they are to show up and stay in a specific role at a specific location, reroutes and sources candidates it rates likely to be retained, and applies the same outcome models to employee flight risk and internal mobility.
Substantial gaps
Screening
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
2 points separate Arena Analytics and Moonhub.
Arena Analytics holds a 2-point edge over Moonhub under rubric v1.0, 32 to 30, across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. Moonhub takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 3 for Arena Analytics, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 3 are level. Arena Analytics takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Arena Analytics 25, Moonhub 18), which is 55% of the weighted advantage Arena Analytics holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Human Oversight Design, Arena Analytics 38 to Moonhub 48.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Arena Analytics3
- Moonhub1
- Level3
- Widest raw gap
- Human Oversight Design38 vs 48
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Arena Analytics is filed under Screening AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Arena Analytics is in scope of
| Record | Arena Analytics | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2022 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight36% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics25Moonhub181.3 weighted points to Arena Analytics
- 2
Human Oversight Design
12% weight71% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics38Moonhub481.2 weighted points to Moonhub
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics28Moonhub220.7 weighted points to Arena Analytics
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics42Moonhub400.3 weighted points to Arena Analytics
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +1.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus Moonhub, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 18 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 22 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 32F | 30F | +2 | +1.1 |
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 | Arena Analytics | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Arena Analytics sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 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.