§ The result
impress.ai leads Moonhub on 6 of the 7 criteria.
impress.ai scores 38 and Moonhub 30 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. impress.ai 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 impress.ai leads is Bias Audit Transparency, impress.ai 22 to Moonhub 18. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (impress.ai 58, Moonhub 38) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (impress.ai 55, Moonhub 40), the second being 31% of the weighted advantage impress.ai holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
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
impress.ai is filed under Screening AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only impress.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | impress.ai | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
impress.ai 55 · Moonhub 40
2.3 weighted points to impress.ai
8% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
impress.ai 58 · Moonhub 38
1.6 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
impress.ai 32 · Moonhub 22
1.2 weighted points to impress.ai
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
impress.ai 35 · Moonhub 30
1.0 weighted points to impress.ai
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
impress.ai 22 · Moonhub 18
0.7 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
impress.ai 52 · Moonhub 48
0.5 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is impress.ai minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | impress.ai | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 18 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 22 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 30 (F) | +8 | +7.3 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 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% | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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