§ The result
Feenyx leads Moonhub on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Feenyx sits 10 points above Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 40 against 30 — with Feenyx filed under Assessment and Moonhub under Sourcing. Feenyx leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Moonhub is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Feenyx leads is Bias Audit Transparency, Feenyx 25 to Moonhub 18. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap (Feenyx 55, Moonhub 38) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Feenyx 42, Moonhub 30), 25% of the weighted advantage Feenyx builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
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
Feenyx 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, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Moonhub 30
2.4 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Moonhub 22
1.9 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Moonhub 40
1.5 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Moonhub 38
1.4 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Moonhub 18
1.3 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Moonhub 48
1.2 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 18 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 22 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 30 (F) | +10 | +9.6 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx last reviewed
- September 25, 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