FluentAssertions adds many helpful ways of comparing data in order to check for "equality" beyond a simple direct comparison (for example check for equivalence across types, across collections, automatically converting types, ignoring elements of types, using fuzzy matching for dates and more). Making a "fluent assertion" on something will automatically integrate with your test framework, registering a failed test if something doesn't quite match. e.g. to compare an object excluding the DateCreated element:

actual.Should()
	.BeEquivalentTo(expected, cfg => cfg.Excluding(p => p.DateCreated));
However, sometimes the "actual" value you want to make the assertion on is only available as part of a Moq Verify statement, which only supports matching based on a boolean return type. e.g.

myMock.Verify(m => 
	m.Method(It.Is<MyData>(actual => 
		actual == expected));
As you can see above, replacing "==" with a "Fluent" assertion is not possible out of the box. However there is a trick you can use by setting up the below helper method:

public static class FluentVerifier
{
	public static bool VerifyFluentAssertion(Action assertion)
	{
		using (var assertionScope = new AssertionScope())
		{
			assertion();

			return !assertionScope.Discard().Any();
		}
	}
}
Now you can nest the Fluent Assertion inside of the Verify statement as follows:

myMock.Verify(m => 
	m.Method(It.Is<MyData>(actual => 
		FluentVerifier.VerifyFluentAssertion(() => 
			actual.Should()
			.BeEquivalentTo(expected, cfg => cfg.Excluding(p => p.DateCreated), ""))));
Note however that since Lambda expressions can't contain calls to methods with optional parameters, you must specify the "becauseArgs" parameter of the "BeEquivalentTo" method.