§ The result
Ashby leads softgarden by 14 points.
Ashby sits 14 points above softgarden under rubric v1.0, 56 against 42, with both filed under ATS-integrated. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Ashby: Ashby is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and softgarden on Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, softgarden 22 — 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Ashby and softgarden are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Ashby | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2018 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · softgarden 22
7.2 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · softgarden 42
4.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · softgarden 30
1.8 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · softgarden 54
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · softgarden 58
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · softgarden 58
0.4 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · softgarden 44
0.2 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 42 | +21 | +4.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 22 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 42 (F) | +14 | +14.4 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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