Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
§ 01 — Score breakdown
§ Score breakdown
Category scoring
Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.
- 01
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Weight 20%63
+12.6
- 02
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18%62
+11.2
- 03
FRIA Support
Weight 15%42
+6.3
- 04
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15%58
+8.7
- 05
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12%62
+7.4
- 06
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12%42
+5.0
- 07
Customer Documentation
Weight 8%63
+5.0
§ 02 — Strongest · weakest
Strongest category
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Raw score 63 · contributes 12.6 to total.
Weakest category
Customer Documentation
Raw score 63 · contributes 5.0 to total.
§ 03 — Cited evidence
§ Evidence
Cited per category
Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence.
§ 04 — Editorial notes
Company overview
Ashby (Ashby, Inc.) is a San Francisco-based, venture-backed recruiting software company founded in 2018 by Benjamin Encz and Abhik Pramanik. Its all-in-one platform spans applicant tracking, sourcing/CRM, interview scheduling, and analytics, and it has progressively layered AI on top — AI-assisted application review, a 'Criteria Evaluation' model that scores resumes against user-defined job criteria, sourcing/outreach personalization, an AI Notetaker, and scheduling agents. It serves mid-market and scaling tech companies (customers include Notion, Duolingo, Airtable, and Opendoor), placing it in the mid price tier.
Regulatory exposure
Ashby's AI-assisted application review and Criteria Evaluation features place it squarely within scope of NYC Local Law 144 (it is an AEDT-style screening tool) and likely Annex III high-risk territory under the EU AI Act once employment-AI obligations apply. The company explicitly acknowledges NYC LL 144, the EU AI Act, and (in its risk-assessment scope) Colorado, and provides candidate notice/opt-out tooling and in-product EEO bias warnings. Its disparate-impact exposure is directly tested in a public FairNow bias audit that found no group below the four-fifths threshold, but that audit is a single 2024 cycle and no later annual audit is publicly posted.
Path to a higher score
The single biggest lever is publishing a second consecutive annual NYC LL 144 bias audit (2025/2026) at a stable URL to demonstrate ongoing monitoring rather than a one-off. Beyond that: pursue ISO/IEC 42001 (or publish a formal model/system card and instructions-for-use pack) to strengthen Article 11 technical documentation; add explicit EU AI Act deployer guidance and an Article 27 FRIA template/checklist for customers; and stand up a public, continuously updated AI model-update changelog or monitoring surface rather than relying on the general status page and disclosure inbox.
Conflicts of interest
No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework — the consulting firm that operates this directory — provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.
Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.