Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Moonhub vs Qureos
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
3 points separate Qureos and Moonhub.
Qureos (Screening) edges Moonhub (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 33 to 30. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Qureos, with 1 level: Qureos is ahead on Post-Market Monitoring and Moonhub on Bias Audit Transparency. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap (Moonhub 38, Qureos 52) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Post-Market Monitoring at 12% (Moonhub 22, Qureos 35), 39% of the weighted advantage Qureos builds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Moonhub2
- Qureos4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Customer Documentation38 vs 52
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Post-Market Monitoring12% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Qureos is in scope of
| Record | Moonhub | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2021 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight28% of the movement so far
Moonhub22Qureos351.6 weighted points to Qureos
- 2
Customer Documentation
8% weight49% of the movement so far
Moonhub38Qureos521.1 weighted points to Qureos
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight69% of the movement so far
Moonhub18Qureos121.1 weighted points to Moonhub
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight82% of the movement so far
Moonhub48Qureos540.7 weighted points to Qureos
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight93% of the movement so far
Moonhub40Qureos440.6 weighted points to Qureos
- 6
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight100% of the movement so far
Moonhub30Qureos280.4 weighted points to Moonhub
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Qureos, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 12 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 30F | 33F | -3 | -2.5 |
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 | Moonhub | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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.