§ The result
HiPeople leads Metaview by 7 points.
HiPeople scores 61 (D) and Metaview 54 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. HiPeople leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Metaview leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 62, Metaview 38 — and at a 20% weight it carries 61% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
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
HiPeople is filed under Assessment AI, Metaview under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Metaview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Metaview 38
4.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Metaview 48
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Metaview 80
0.7 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Metaview 62
0.3 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Metaview 33
0.3 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Metaview 60
0.3 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Metaview 60
0.2 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Metaview.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Metaview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 80 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 54 (F) | +7 | +7.5 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | Metaview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | 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 |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 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 HiPeople and Metaview sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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