§ The result
Manatal leads Arena Analytics by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Manatal, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 41 and Arena Analytics, filed under Screening, on 32, 9 points apart. Manatal leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Human Oversight Design, while Arena Analytics leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Arena Analytics 38, Manatal 62) and Human Oversight Design at 12% (Arena Analytics 38, Manatal 60), the second being 27% of the weighted advantage Manatal holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arena Analytics
Arena scores job applicants, mainly for healthcare and senior-living employers, on how likely they are to show up and stay in a specific role at a specific location, reroutes and sources candidates it rates likely to be retained, and applies the same outcome models to employee flight risk and internal mobility.
Vendor profile
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
§ The record
Arena Analytics is filed under Screening AI, Manatal under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arena Analytics | Manatal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | TH |
| Founded | 2015 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arena Analytics 38 · Manatal 60
2.6 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arena Analytics 38 · Manatal 62
1.9 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arena Analytics 28 · Manatal 43
1.8 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arena Analytics 42 · Manatal 52
1.5 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arena Analytics 25 · Manatal 33
1.2 weighted points to Manatal
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arena Analytics 30 · Manatal 33
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arena Analytics 25 · Manatal 22
0.5 weighted points to Arena Analytics
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus Manatal.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | Manatal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 43 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 32 (F) | 41 (F) | -9 | -9.1 |
§ 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 | Arena Analytics | Manatal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Arena Analytics sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Manatal last reviewed
- July 17, 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