§ The result
Ashby leads BrightHire by 5 points.
Ashby scores 56 and BrightHire 51 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Ashby leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while BrightHire leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Ashby 62, BrightHire 50) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Ashby 63, BrightHire 52), the second being 39% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
BrightHire
BrightHire is an interview intelligence platform that records, transcribes and analyzes hiring interviews into competency-structured notes and ATS scorecards, and additionally runs AI-led screening interviews (BrightHire Screen) that score and rank candidates against customer-defined rubrics.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, BrightHire under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only BrightHire is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | BrightHire |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · BrightHire 52
2.2 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · BrightHire 50
2.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · BrightHire 36
0.9 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · BrightHire 60
0.3 weighted points to BrightHire
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · BrightHire 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · BrightHire 62
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus BrightHire.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | BrightHire | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 51 (F) | +5 | +5.3 |
§ 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 | Ashby | BrightHire | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; BrightHire has 23 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 23 for BrightHire, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- BrightHire last reviewed
- August 2, 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