§ The result
HiPeople leads Ashby by 5 points.
HiPeople scores 61 (D) and Ashby 56 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. HiPeople leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Ashby leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, HiPeople 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 3 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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HiPeople 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 HiPeople is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2018 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · HiPeople 84
4.0 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · HiPeople 60
2.2 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · HiPeople 35
1.1 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · HiPeople 66
0.2 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · HiPeople 62
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -5.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus HiPeople.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 84 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 60 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 66 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 61 (D) | -5 | -5.1 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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