§ The result
Ashby takes the total, Checkr takes more of the criteria.
Ashby (ATS-integrated) edges Checkr (Screening) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 54. Checkr leads more of the criteria than Ashby — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Ashby leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Ashby. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Checkr 35 — and at an 18% weight it carries 76% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 2 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
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Checkr 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.
| Record | Ashby | Checkr |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Checkr 35
4.9 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Checkr 32
1.5 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Checkr 70
1.4 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Checkr 50
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Checkr 62
0.6 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Checkr 66
0.5 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Checkr 68
0.4 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 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 +2.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Checkr.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Checkr | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 70 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 35 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 68 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 54 (F) | +2 | +2.5 |
§ 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 | Checkr | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 24 | 6 | 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; Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Checkr 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