§ The result
Greenhouse leads Ashby on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Greenhouse sits 11 points above Ashby under rubric v1.0, 67 (D) against 56 (F), with both filed under ATS-integrated. Greenhouse leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Ashby is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Greenhouse leads is Customer Documentation, Ashby 63 to Greenhouse 64. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Greenhouse 86 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 6 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
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
§ The record
Ashby and Greenhouse are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Ashby | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Greenhouse 86
4.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Greenhouse 78
3.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Greenhouse 58
1.9 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Greenhouse 64
0.9 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Greenhouse 66
0.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Greenhouse 64
0.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Greenhouse.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Greenhouse | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 78 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 86 | -24 | -4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 64 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 67 (D) | -11 | -10.7 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 16 | 1 | 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; Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Greenhouse 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