HomeCompareMoonhub vs SeekOut

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Moonhub vs SeekOut

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

4 points separate SeekOut and Moonhub.

Within the Sourcing cohort, SeekOut edges Moonhub by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 34 to 30. Moonhub and SeekOut each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split SeekOut holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Moonhub 18, SeekOut 40 — and at an 18% weight it carries 74% of the weighted advantage SeekOut holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Moonhub and SeekOut are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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.

RecordMoonhubSeekOut
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20222017

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 59% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Moonhub 18 · SeekOut 40

    4.0 weighted points to SeekOut

  2. 20% weight · 74% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Moonhub 30 · SeekOut 35

    1.0 weighted points to SeekOut

  3. 15% weight · 86% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Moonhub 40 · SeekOut 35

    0.8 weighted points to Moonhub

  4. 12% weight · 91% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Moonhub 48 · SeekOut 45

    0.4 weighted points to Moonhub

  5. 12% weight · 96% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Moonhub 22 · SeekOut 25

    0.4 weighted points to SeekOut

  6. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Moonhub 38 · SeekOut 35

    0.2 weighted points to Moonhub

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Moonhub minus SeekOut.

CategoryWeightMoonhubSeekOutΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3035-5-1.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%1840-22-4.0
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4035+5+0.8
Human Oversight Design12%4845+3+0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%2225-3-0.4
Customer Documentation8%3835+3+0.2
Total100%30 (F)34 (F)-4-4.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightMoonhubSeekOut
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%1110Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%1101
Customer Documentation8%11Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%67Sources on the vendor's own domain54Sources on the vendor's own domain

Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; SeekOut has 9 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 5 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 22 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 9 for SeekOut, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Moonhub last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
SeekOut last reviewed
May 21, 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.