§ The result
Personio leads Moonhub on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Personio sits 10 points above Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 40 against 30 — with Personio filed under ATS-integrated and Moonhub under Sourcing. Personio 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 Personio leads is FRIA Support, Moonhub 25 to Personio 30. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Moonhub 22, Personio 48, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Personio holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
§ The record
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Personio under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Moonhub | Personio |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Personio 48
3.1 weighted points to Personio
20% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Personio 40
2.0 weighted points to Personio
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Personio 52
1.8 weighted points to Personio
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Personio 25
1.3 weighted points to Personio
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Personio 50
1.0 weighted points to Personio
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Personio 30
0.8 weighted points to Personio
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 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 -9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Personio.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Personio | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 25 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 48 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 48 | -26 | -3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 40 (F) | -10 | -9.9 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | Personio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Personio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Personio, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 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