§ The result
4 points separate Ashby and Phenom.
Ashby (ATS-integrated) edges Phenom (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 52. Ashby leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Phenom leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. FRIA Support is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 42, Phenom 25, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 39% 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
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Phenom under Candidate sourcing 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 | Phenom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 28% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Phenom 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Phenom 75
2.3 weighted points to Phenom
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Phenom 55
1.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Phenom 30
1.4 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Phenom 55
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Phenom 60
0.3 weighted points to Phenom
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Phenom 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Phenom.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Phenom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 75 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 55 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 52 (F) | +4 | +3.8 |
§ 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 | Phenom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 the vendor's own 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 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
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 Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Phenom 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