§ The result
Tengai leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Tengai, filed under Screening, comes out 12 points above Moonhub, filed under Sourcing: 42 against 30 under rubric v1.0. Tengai takes all 7 criteria from Moonhub without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is FRIA Support, Moonhub 25 to Tengai 28. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Moonhub 38, Tengai 55) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Moonhub 30, Tengai 45), the second being 26% of the weighted advantage Tengai 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
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Tengai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Tengai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Moonhub | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Tengai 45
3.0 weighted points to Tengai
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Tengai 33
2.7 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Tengai 50
1.5 weighted points to Tengai
8% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Tengai 55
1.4 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Tengai 33
1.3 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Tengai 58
1.2 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Tengai 28
0.4 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 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 -11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 45 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 33 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 33 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 42 (F) | -12 | -11.5 |
§ 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 | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 37 | 5 | Sources 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; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tengai 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 Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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