§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Workday Recruiting AI (ATS-integrated) and Moonhub (Sourcing): 56 for Workday Recruiting AI, 30 for Moonhub. Workday Recruiting AI leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Moonhub leads none. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Moonhub 18, Workday Recruiting AI 60) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Moonhub 30, Workday Recruiting AI 70), the second being 32% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting 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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Workday Recruiting AI under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Moonhub | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2022 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
8.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
7.6 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
2.3 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
8% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
2.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
2.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
1.6 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
1.5 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -25.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.1 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 -25.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 70 | -40 | -8.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 60 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 65 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 65 | -27 | -2.2 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 56 (F) | -26 | -25.1 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 24 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI 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.
§ Where next