§ The result
softgarden leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
softgarden sits 12 points above Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 42 against 30 — with softgarden filed under ATS-integrated and Moonhub under Sourcing. Of the 7 criteria Moonhub wins none, and the narrowest lead softgarden holds is on Bias Audit Transparency, Moonhub 18 to softgarden 22. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Moonhub 22, softgarden 44, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 23% of the weighted advantage softgarden 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, softgarden under ATS-integrated 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · softgarden 44
2.6 weighted points to softgarden
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · softgarden 42
2.4 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · softgarden 54
2.1 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · softgarden 58
1.6 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · softgarden 58
1.2 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · softgarden 22
0.7 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 22 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 44 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 58 | -20 | -1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 42 (F) | -12 | -11.4 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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