§ The result
1 point separates Manatal and Feenyx.
Manatal (ATS-integrated) edges Feenyx (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 41 to 40. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Manatal: Manatal is ahead on FRIA Support and Feenyx on Article 11 Technical Documentation. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, and Feenyx holds it (Feenyx 42, Manatal 33, 20% weight), worth 77% of the weighted advantage Feenyx builds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
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
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Manatal under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 3 secondary categories: Screening, Video interview and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Manatal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | TH |
| Founded | 2016 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Manatal 33
1.8 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · Manatal 33
1.2 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Manatal 43
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Manatal 62
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
18% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Manatal 22
0.5 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Manatal 52
0.3 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Manatal 60
0.2 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Manatal.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Manatal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 41 (F) | -1 | -0.6 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | Manatal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 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% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 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 Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx 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