§ The result
Ashby leads Manatal by 15 points.
Ashby finishes 15 points clear of Manatal inside the ATS-integrated cohort under rubric v1.0: 56 against 41. Ashby leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Manatal leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Manatal 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 46% 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
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
§ The record
Ashby and Manatal 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. Only Manatal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Manatal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | TH |
| Founded | 2018 | 2019 |
§ 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 · Manatal 22
7.2 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Manatal 33
6.0 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Manatal 33
1.3 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Manatal 52
0.9 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Manatal 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Manatal 43
0.1 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Manatal 62
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +15.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Manatal.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Manatal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 33 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 22 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 43 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 41 (F) | +15 | +15.7 |
§ 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 | Manatal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 15 | 5 | 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; Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Manatal last reviewed
- July 17, 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