§ The result
Cornerstone OnDemand takes the total, Metaview takes more of the criteria.
Cornerstone OnDemand (ATS-integrated) edges Metaview (Screening) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 54. Metaview leads more of the criteria than Cornerstone OnDemand — 4 to 2 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Cornerstone OnDemand leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Cornerstone OnDemand. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cornerstone OnDemand 72, Metaview 38 — and at a 20% weight it carries 96% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
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
Cornerstone OnDemand is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Metaview under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Assessment.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cornerstone OnDemand | Metaview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1999 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cornerstone OnDemand 72 · Metaview 38
6.8 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
18% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cornerstone OnDemand 58 · Metaview 80
4.0 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cornerstone OnDemand 55 · Metaview 60
0.6 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cornerstone OnDemand 45 · Metaview 48
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cornerstone OnDemand 35 · Metaview 33
0.3 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cornerstone OnDemand 60 · Metaview 62
0.2 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cornerstone OnDemand minus Metaview.
| Category | Weight | Cornerstone OnDemand | Metaview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 72 | 38 | +34 | +6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 80 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 54 (F) | +2 | +2.0 |
§ 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 | Cornerstone OnDemand | Metaview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cornerstone OnDemand has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 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 Cornerstone OnDemand and Metaview sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cornerstone OnDemand last reviewed
- June 7, 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