§ The result
Canditech leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Canditech scores 39 and Moonhub 30 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Canditech leads every one of the 7 criteria, Moonhub none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Canditech 30 to Moonhub 25. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Canditech 58, Moonhub 38) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (Canditech 52, Moonhub 40), the second being 21% of the weighted advantage Canditech holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Canditech
Canditech is a skills-assessment and job-simulation platform that screens candidates with work-sample tests, technical and soft-skill assessments, and one-way video interviews, using AI agents to auto-score open-text and video responses.
Vendor profile
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
Canditech is filed under Assessment AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Canditech is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Canditech | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IL | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 21% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Moonhub 40
1.8 weighted points to Canditech
8% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Moonhub 38
1.6 weighted points to Canditech
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Moonhub 30
1.4 weighted points to Canditech
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Canditech 25 · Moonhub 18
1.3 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Moonhub 22
1.2 weighted points to Canditech
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Moonhub 25
0.8 weighted points to Canditech
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Moonhub 48
0.6 weighted points to Canditech
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Canditech minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 30 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 18 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 48 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 22 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 30 (F) | +9 | +8.6 |
§ 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 | Canditech | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Canditech has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub 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