§ The result
Ashby leads Paycom by 6 points.
Ashby scores 56 and Paycom 50 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. Ashby leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Paycom leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Paycom 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 5 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
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
Ashby and Paycom are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Scheduling and Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ashby | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Paycom 38
4.3 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Paycom 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Paycom 68
1.0 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Paycom 55
0.8 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Paycom 62
0.6 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Paycom 38
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Paycom 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Paycom.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 68 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 50 (F) | +6 | +6.1 |
§ 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 | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 7 | 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; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 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 Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom 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