§ The result
RippleMatch leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
The Sourcing cohort pairing of RippleMatch and Moonhub comes out 46 to 30 under rubric v1.0, a 16-point lead for RippleMatch. Of the 7 criteria Moonhub wins none, and the narrowest lead RippleMatch holds is on FRIA Support, Moonhub 25 to RippleMatch 27. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Moonhub 18, RippleMatch 53) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 40% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 7 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
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
§ The record
Moonhub and RippleMatch 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.
| Record | Moonhub | RippleMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · RippleMatch 53
6.3 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · RippleMatch 46
3.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · RippleMatch 37
1.8 weighted points to RippleMatch
8% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · RippleMatch 60
1.8 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · RippleMatch 50
1.5 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · RippleMatch 57
1.1 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · RippleMatch 27
0.3 weighted points to RippleMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -15.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus RippleMatch.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | RippleMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 46 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 53 | -35 | -6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 27 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 37 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 46 (F) | -16 | -15.9 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources 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; RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RippleMatch 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