§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Sapia.ai (Assessment) and Moonhub (Sourcing): 56 for Sapia.ai, 30 for Moonhub. Sapia.ai leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Moonhub leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Moonhub 30, Sapia.ai 70, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai 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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment 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 Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Moonhub | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2022 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Sapia.ai 70
8.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Sapia.ai 52
6.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Sapia.ai 50
3.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Sapia.ai 62
3.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Sapia.ai 62
1.9 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Sapia.ai 62
1.7 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Sapia.ai 35
1.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -25.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -26 beside that -25.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 70 | -40 | -8.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 52 | -34 | -6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 50 | -28 | -3.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 56 (F) | -26 | -25.9 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | 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 | 16 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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