§ The result
Ashby leads RippleMatch on all 7 criteria.
Ashby, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 10 points above RippleMatch, filed under Sourcing: 56 against 46 under rubric v1.0. Ashby takes all 7 criteria from RippleMatch without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Customer Documentation, Ashby 63 to RippleMatch 60. The advantage Ashby holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Ashby 63, RippleMatch 46, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 34% of the weighted points Ashby gains 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
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, RippleMatch 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 | RippleMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · RippleMatch 46
3.4 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · RippleMatch 27
2.3 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · RippleMatch 53
1.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · RippleMatch 50
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · RippleMatch 57
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · RippleMatch 37
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · RippleMatch 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus RippleMatch.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | RippleMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 46 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 53 | +9 | +1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 27 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 37 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 46 (F) | +10 | +9.9 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RippleMatch 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