§ The result
Ashby leads Feenyx on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Ashby (ATS-integrated) opens a 16-point lead on Feenyx (Assessment), 56 to 40. Of the 7 criteria Feenyx wins none, and the narrowest lead Ashby holds is on Human Oversight Design, Ashby 62 to Feenyx 58. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Feenyx 25 — and at an 18% weight it carries 41% 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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Feenyx under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Sourcing and Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Feenyx 25
6.7 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Feenyx 42
4.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Feenyx 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Feenyx 50
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Feenyx 55
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Feenyx 58
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Feenyx 38
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +16.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 42 | +21 | +4.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 25 | +37 | +6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 40 (F) | +16 | +16.2 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 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; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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