§ The result
Recruiterflow leads Moonhub on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Recruiterflow scores 36 and Moonhub 30 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Recruiterflow 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 Recruiterflow leads is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Moonhub 30 to Recruiterflow 33. Even Customer Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Moonhub 38, Recruiterflow 56, 8% weight), is only 24% of the weighted advantage Recruiterflow builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Moonhub is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Moonhub | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
8% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Recruiterflow 56
1.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Recruiterflow 33
1.3 weighted points to Recruiterflow
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Recruiterflow 58
1.2 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Recruiterflow 30
0.8 weighted points to Recruiterflow
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Recruiterflow 33
0.6 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Recruiterflow 44
0.6 weighted points to Recruiterflow
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 18 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 33 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 56 | -18 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 36 (F) | -6 | -5.9 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 7 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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.
§ Where next