§ The result
Greenhouse leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 37 points between Greenhouse (ATS-integrated) and Moonhub (Sourcing): 67 (D) for Greenhouse, 30 (F) for Moonhub. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Moonhub leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Greenhouse 86, Moonhub 18, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
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
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing 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 | Greenhouse | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Greenhouse 86 · Moonhub 18
12.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Greenhouse 78 · Moonhub 30
9.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Greenhouse 58 · Moonhub 22
4.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Greenhouse 64 · Moonhub 40
3.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Greenhouse 42 · Moonhub 25
2.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Greenhouse 66 · Moonhub 48
2.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Greenhouse 64 · Moonhub 38
2.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +36.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 36.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +37 beside that +36.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 30 | +48 | +9.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 18 | +68 | +12.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 40 | +24 | +3.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 48 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 22 | +36 | +4.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 38 | +26 | +2.1 |
| Total | 100% | 67 (D) | 30 (F) | +37 | +36.5 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 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