§ The result
Wonderlic leads Moonhub by 13 points.
Wonderlic sits 13 points above Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 43 against 30 — with Wonderlic filed under Assessment and Moonhub under Sourcing. Wonderlic leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Moonhub leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Moonhub 18, Wonderlic 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 5 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Moonhub | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Wonderlic 48
5.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Wonderlic 52
4.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
8% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Wonderlic 55
1.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Wonderlic 33
1.3 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Wonderlic 52
0.5 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Wonderlic 38
0.3 weighted points to Moonhub
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -12.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 48 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 33 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 43 (F) | -13 | -12.7 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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 | — | 1 | 1 | 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 | 9 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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