§ The result
Ashby leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Ashby (ATS-integrated) opens a 23-point lead on Qureos (Screening), 56 to 33. Of the 7 criteria Qureos wins none, and the narrowest lead Ashby holds is on Post-Market Monitoring, Ashby 42 to Qureos 35. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Ashby 62, Qureos 12, 18% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Ashby builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2018 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Qureos 12
9.0 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Qureos 28
7.0 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Qureos 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Qureos 44
2.1 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Qureos 54
1.0 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Qureos 52
0.9 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Qureos 35
0.8 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +23.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +23 beside that +23.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 28 | +35 | +7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 12 | +50 | +9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 33 (F) | +23 | +23.3 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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