§ The result
Ashby leads Mercer | Mettl on all 7 criteria.
Ashby sits 14 points above Mercer | Mettl under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 42 — with Ashby filed under ATS-integrated and Mercer | Mettl under Assessment. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, Mercer | Mettl none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Ashby 58 to Mercer | Mettl 55. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 63, Mercer | Mettl 38, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 34% 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
Mercer | Mettl
Mercer | Mettl is an online talent assessment and remote-proctoring platform offering psychometric, aptitude, coding, and skills tests plus AI-assisted exam proctoring and scoring for hiring, certification, and L&D.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Mercer | Mettl 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 Mercer | Mettl is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Mercer | Mettl |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2018 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Mercer | Mettl 38
5.0 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Mercer | Mettl 42
3.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Mercer | Mettl 28
2.1 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Mercer | Mettl 45
2.0 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Mercer | Mettl 52
0.9 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Mercer | Mettl 38
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Mercer | Mettl 55
0.4 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Mercer | Mettl.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Mercer | Mettl | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 38 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 42 (F) | +14 | +14.5 |
§ 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 | Mercer | Mettl | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 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; Mercer | Mettl has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Mercer | Mettl, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Mercer | Mettl 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