§ The result
Ashby leads SHL on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Ashby scores 56 and SHL 51 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Ashby leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so SHL is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Ashby leads is Post-Market Monitoring, Ashby 42 to SHL 40. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ashby 62, SHL 50, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% 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
SHL
SHL is a global talent-assessment provider offering AI-scored cognitive ability, personality, behavioral, situational-judgement, coding, and video-interview assessments that score, rank, and recommend candidates for hiring and development decisions.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, SHL under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only SHL is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ashby | SHL |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 1977 |
§ 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 · SHL 50
2.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · SHL 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · SHL 60
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · SHL 58
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · SHL 40
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · SHL 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus SHL.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | SHL | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 51 (F) | +5 | +5.5 |
§ 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 | SHL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 4 | 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; SHL has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for SHL, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- SHL last reviewed
- June 7, 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