§ The result
Ashby leads Crosschq on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Ashby scores 56 and Crosschq 47 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Ashby leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Crosschq is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Ashby leads is Customer Documentation, Ashby 63 to Crosschq 62. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Ashby 62, Crosschq 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Crosschq 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 Crosschq is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Crosschq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2018 |
§ 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 · Crosschq 38
4.3 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Crosschq 50
2.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Crosschq 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Crosschq 40
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Crosschq 62
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +9.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Crosschq.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Crosschq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 50 | +13 | +2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 47 (F) | +9 | +9.0 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 38 | 5 | Sources 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; Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 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