§ The result
Ashby leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Ashby (ATS-integrated) and Moonhub (Sourcing): 56 for Ashby, 30 for Moonhub. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Moonhub leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 62, Moonhub 18, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 31% 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
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing 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.
| Record | Ashby | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Moonhub 18
7.9 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Moonhub 30
6.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Moonhub 40
2.7 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Moonhub 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Moonhub 22
2.4 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Moonhub 38
2.0 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Moonhub 48
1.7 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +25.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +26 beside that +25.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 30 | +33 | +6.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 18 | +44 | +7.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 22 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 38 | +25 | +2.0 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 30 (F) | +26 | +25.8 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 6 | 7 | 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; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub 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