§ The result
Manatal leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Manatal sits 11 points above Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 41 against 30 — with Manatal filed under ATS-integrated and Moonhub under Sourcing. Manatal leads every one of the 7 criteria, Moonhub none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Manatal 33 to Moonhub 30. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Manatal 62, Moonhub 38) and Post-Market Monitoring at 12% (Manatal 43, Moonhub 22), the second being 25% of the weighted advantage Manatal holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
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
Manatal 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. Only Manatal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Manatal | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | TH | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Manatal 43 · Moonhub 22
2.5 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Manatal 62 · Moonhub 38
1.9 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Manatal 52 · Moonhub 40
1.8 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Manatal 60 · Moonhub 48
1.4 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Manatal 33 · Moonhub 25
1.2 weighted points to Manatal
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Manatal 22 · Moonhub 18
0.7 weighted points to Manatal
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Manatal 33 · Moonhub 30
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 18 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 22 | +21 | +2.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 30 (F) | +11 | +10.2 |
§ 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 | Manatal | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal 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