Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Ashby vs iCIMS
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
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
1 point separates Ashby and iCIMS.
Ashby holds a 1-point edge over iCIMS under rubric v1.0, 56 to 55, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. Ashby leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while iCIMS leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to iCIMS — Ashby 62, iCIMS 68, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Ashby5
- iCIMS1
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency62 vs 68
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Ashby and iCIMS are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Sourcing and Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Ashby | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2000 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight31% of the movement so far
Ashby62iCIMS681.1 weighted points to iCIMS
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight59% of the movement so far
Ashby63iCIMS581.0 weighted points to Ashby
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight76% of the movement so far
Ashby42iCIMS380.6 weighted points to Ashby
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight89% of the movement so far
Ashby62iCIMS580.5 weighted points to Ashby
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight98% of the movement so far
Ashby58iCIMS560.3 weighted points to Ashby
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Ashby63iCIMS620.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.5 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 +1.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus iCIMS, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 68 | -6 | -1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56F | 55F | +1 | +1.4 |
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 | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS 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
Scored against