§ The result
Ashby leads Canditech on all 7 criteria.
Ashby finishes 17 points clear of Canditech under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 39 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, Canditech none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Ashby 63 to Canditech 58. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 62, Canditech 25, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 7 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
Canditech
Canditech is a skills-assessment and job-simulation platform that screens candidates with work-sample tests, technical and soft-skill assessments, and one-way video interviews, using AI agents to auto-score open-text and video responses.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Canditech 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 Canditech is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Canditech |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IL |
| Founded | 2018 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Canditech 25
6.7 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Canditech 37
5.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Canditech 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Canditech 32
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Canditech 53
1.1 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Canditech 52
0.9 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Canditech 58
0.4 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +17.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +17 beside that +17.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Canditech.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Canditech | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 37 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 25 | +37 | +6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 53 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 39 (F) | +17 | +17.2 |
§ 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 | Canditech | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Canditech has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Canditech 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