§ The result
Ashby and Cornerstone OnDemand tie at 56.
Ashby and Cornerstone OnDemand tie at 56 under rubric v1.0 inside the ATS-integrated cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Ashby leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Cornerstone OnDemand 3, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 63, Cornerstone OnDemand 72 — and at a 20% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 3 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
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
§ The record
Ashby and Cornerstone OnDemand are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Cornerstone OnDemand is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Cornerstone OnDemand |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 1999 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Cornerstone OnDemand 72
1.8 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Cornerstone OnDemand 35
1.1 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Cornerstone OnDemand 55
0.8 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Cornerstone OnDemand 58
0.7 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Cornerstone OnDemand 45
0.4 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
0.3 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Cornerstone OnDemand 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Cornerstone OnDemand.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Cornerstone OnDemand | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 72 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 56 (F) | - | +0.4 |
§ 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 | Cornerstone OnDemand | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 5 | 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; Cornerstone OnDemand has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cornerstone OnDemand sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cornerstone OnDemand 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.
§ Where next