§ The result
Ashby leads Paradox on all 7 criteria.
Ashby finishes 15 points clear of Paradox under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 41 — across the ATS-integrated and Scheduling cohorts. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, Paradox none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, Ashby 42 to Paradox 35. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 63, Paradox 40, 20% 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Paradox 40
4.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 48% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Paradox 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Paradox 50
2.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Paradox 45
1.9 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Paradox 50
1.4 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Paradox 45
1.4 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Paradox 35
0.8 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.0 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 +15.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 40 | +23 | +4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 45 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 41 (F) | +15 | +15.0 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 32 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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