§ The result
1 point separates Bryq and Ashby.
Bryq (Assessment) edges Ashby (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56. Bryq leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Ashby leads 3, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Ashby takes Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20%, Ashby 63 to Bryq 54, 59% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Post-Market Monitoring, Ashby 42 to Bryq 55.
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
Bryq
Bryq is a science-based talent-intelligence platform whose core product is a short, blind, chatbot-driven pre-hire assessment scoring candidates on cognitive ability, personality/behavioral traits, and job skills to produce a job-fit "match" score used for hiring and internal mobility.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Bryq under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Bryq is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Bryq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Bryq 54
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Bryq 55
1.6 weighted points to Bryq
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Bryq 70
1.4 weighted points to Bryq
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Bryq 54
1.0 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Bryq 62
0.6 weighted points to Bryq
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Bryq 40
0.3 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Bryq 66
0.2 weighted points to Bryq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Bryq.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Bryq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 54 | +9 | +1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 70 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 66 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 57 (F) | -1 | -0.8 |
§ 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 | Bryq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 20 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Bryq has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Bryq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 24 for Bryq, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Bryq last reviewed
- July 17, 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