§ The result
Ashby leads Recruiterflow on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Ashby opens a 20-point lead on Recruiterflow, 56 to 36, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria, Recruiterflow none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Ashby 62 to Recruiterflow 58. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Recruiterflow 18 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Ashby and Recruiterflow are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Ashby is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ashby | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Recruiterflow 18
7.9 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Recruiterflow 33
6.0 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Recruiterflow 44
2.1 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Recruiterflow 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Recruiterflow 33
1.1 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Recruiterflow 56
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Recruiterflow 58
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +20 beside that +19.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 33 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 18 | +44 | +7.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 56 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 36 (F) | +20 | +19.9 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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