§ The result
Ashby leads hackajob on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Ashby, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 11 points above hackajob, filed under Sourcing: 56 against 45 under rubric v1.0. hackajob is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Ashby takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Ashby 63 to hackajob 60. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, hackajob 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 67% of the weighted advantage Ashby 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
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, hackajob 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 | hackajob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · hackajob 20
7.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · hackajob 32
1.5 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · hackajob 55
0.8 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · hackajob 60
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · hackajob 38
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · hackajob 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +11.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 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 +11.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus hackajob.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | hackajob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 32 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 45 (F) | +11 | +11.2 |
§ 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 | hackajob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- hackajob 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