Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Moonhub
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.
Concerning
ATS-integrated
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Greenhouse 86, Moonhub 18, 18% weight), is only 33% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- Moonhub0
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency86 vs 18
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight33% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Moonhub1812.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight60% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Moonhub309.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight72% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Moonhub224.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight81% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Moonhub403.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight88% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42Moonhub252.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight94% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Moonhub482.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Moonhub382.1 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 67D | 30F | +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.