§ The result
Ashby leads Draup on all 7 criteria.
Ashby sits 14 points above Draup under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 42 — with Ashby filed under ATS-integrated and Draup under Sourcing. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, Draup none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Ashby 58 to Draup 54. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 62, Draup 33, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 37% 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
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing 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.
| Record | Ashby | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Draup 33
5.2 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Draup 48
3.0 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Draup 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Draup 28
1.7 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Draup 54
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Draup 58
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Draup 57
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 48 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 33 | +29 | +5.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 57 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 42 (F) | +14 | +14.0 |
§ 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 | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 23 | 7 | 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; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup 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