§ The result
Radancy leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Radancy sits 11 points above Moonhub under rubric v1.0, 41 against 30, with both filed under Sourcing. Radancy leads every one of the 7 criteria, Moonhub none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Moonhub 18 to Radancy 20. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Moonhub 38, Radancy 60) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (Moonhub 40, Radancy 58), the second being 26% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 7 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Moonhub and Radancy are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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. Only Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Moonhub | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Radancy 58
2.7 weighted points to Radancy
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Radancy 42
2.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Radancy 60
1.8 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Radancy 36
1.7 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Radancy 57
1.1 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Radancy 20
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 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 -10.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 20 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 58 | -18 | -2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 36 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 41 (F) | -11 | -10.4 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy 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