Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Ashby vs Rippling
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Ashby and Rippling tie at 56.
Ashby and Rippling, both in the ATS-integrated cohort, tie at 56 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Ashby leads 2 of the 7 criteria and Rippling 5, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Rippling 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 94% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Ashby2
- Rippling5
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency62 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Ashby and Rippling are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of
Only Ashby is in scope of
| Record | Ashby | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight46% of the movement so far
Ashby62Rippling423.6 weighted points to Ashby
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight71% of the movement so far
Ashby63Rippling732.0 weighted points to Rippling
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight83% of the movement so far
Ashby58Rippling640.9 weighted points to Rippling
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight90% of the movement so far
Ashby42Rippling470.6 weighted points to Rippling
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight96% of the movement so far
Ashby42Rippling450.4 weighted points to Rippling
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight99% of the movement so far
Ashby62Rippling600.2 weighted points to Ashby
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Ashby63Rippling640.1 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Rippling, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 73 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 45 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 47 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 64 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 56F | 56F | - | -0.2 |
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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 12 | 1 | 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; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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
Scored against