§ The result
Metaview leads Brainner by 8 points.
Inside the Screening cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Metaview on 54 and Brainner on 46, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Metaview: Metaview is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Brainner on Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Brainner 42, Metaview 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 67% of the weighted advantage Metaview holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
Vendor profile
Metaview
Metaview is an AI recruiting platform whose agents transcribe and summarize interviews into structured notes and scorecards, and whose Application Review feature screens and ranks inbound applicants against an auto-generated Ideal Candidate Profile with fit ratings.
§ The record
Brainner and Metaview are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Metaview is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Brainner | Metaview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2023 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Metaview 80
6.8 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Metaview 38
2.8 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Metaview 60
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Metaview 60
1.1 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Metaview 33
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Metaview 48
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Metaview 62
0.3 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Metaview.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Metaview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 80 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 60 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -7.4 |
§ 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 | Brainner | Metaview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Metaview has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Brainner and Metaview sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Metaview 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