§ The result
Ashby leads HighMatch on all 7 criteria.
Ashby, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 13 points above HighMatch, filed under Assessment: 56 against 43 under rubric v1.0. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, HighMatch none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Ashby 62 to HighMatch 60. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, HighMatch 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 45% 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
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HighMatch under Assessment 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. Only HighMatch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | HighMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · HighMatch 30
5.8 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · HighMatch 45
3.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · HighMatch 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · HighMatch 52
0.9 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · HighMatch 58
0.4 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · HighMatch 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · HighMatch 40
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus HighMatch.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | HighMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 45 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 30 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 43 (F) | +13 | +12.9 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 31 | 4 | 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; HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch 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 HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HighMatch 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