§ The result
Metaview leads Feenyx by 14 points.
Metaview sits 14 points above Feenyx under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 40 — with Metaview filed under Screening and Feenyx under Assessment. Feenyx takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 6 for Metaview, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Feenyx 25, Metaview 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 68% of the weighted advantage Metaview holds across the 6 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
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
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Metaview under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Metaview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Metaview 80
9.9 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Metaview 60
1.5 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · Metaview 33
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Metaview 48
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Metaview 38
0.8 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Metaview 62
0.6 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Metaview 60
0.2 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -13.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Metaview.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Metaview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 80 | -55 | -9.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 54 (F) | -14 | -13.8 |
§ 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 | Metaview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 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% | 30 | 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 |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 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 Feenyx and Metaview sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx 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