Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Ashby vs Gem
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Gem
Gem is an AI-first recruiting platform combining a talent CRM, AI sourcing and outreach automation, candidate engagement, and a newer applicant tracking system with AI-powered application review and ranking.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
1 point separates Ashby and Gem.
Ashby holds a 1-point edge over Gem under rubric v1.0, 56 to 55, across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Ashby: Ashby is ahead on FRIA Support and Gem on Bias Audit Transparency. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 42, Gem 35 — and at a 15% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Ashby5
- Gem2
- Widest raw gap
- FRIA Support42 vs 35
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Gem under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Scheduling and Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Ashby | Gem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight28% of the movement so far
Ashby42Gem351.1 weighted points to Ashby
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight55% of the movement so far
Ashby63Gem581.0 weighted points to Ashby
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight74% of the movement so far
Ashby62Gem660.7 weighted points to Gem
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Ashby42Gem470.6 weighted points to Gem
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight95% of the movement so far
Ashby58Gem570.1 weighted points to Ashby
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight98% of the movement so far
Ashby62Gem610.1 weighted points to Ashby
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Ashby63Gem620.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Gem, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Gem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 61 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 47 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56F | 55F | +1 | +1.1 |
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 | Gem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 19 | 2 | 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; Gem has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Gem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 21 for Gem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Gem 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.