§ The result
Ashby leads Radancy on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Ashby finishes 15 points clear of Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 41 — across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Ashby leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Radancy is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Ashby leads is Customer Documentation, Ashby 63 to Radancy 60. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 6 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Radancy 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. Only Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Radancy 20
7.6 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Radancy 42
4.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Radancy 28
2.1 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Radancy 36
0.7 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Radancy 57
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +15.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.4 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 +15.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 42 | +21 | +4.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 41 (F) | +15 | +15.4 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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