§ The result
Ashby leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Ashby (ATS-integrated) and XOR (Screening): 56 for Ashby, 30 for XOR. Ashby leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; XOR leads none. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Ashby 62, XOR 18) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Ashby 63, XOR 20), the second being 33% 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, XOR under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ashby | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · XOR 20
8.6 weighted points to Ashby
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · XOR 18
7.9 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · XOR 40
2.6 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · XOR 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · XOR 42
2.4 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · XOR 48
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · XOR 33
1.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +26.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 26.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +26 beside that +26.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 20 | +43 | +8.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 18 | +44 | +7.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +2.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 48 | +15 | +1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 30 (F) | +26 | +26.4 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 7 | 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; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR 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