§ The result
Hireology leads Manatal by 16 points.
Hireology finishes 16 points clear of Manatal inside the ATS-integrated cohort under rubric v1.0: 57 against 41. Hireology leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Manatal leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Hireology 83, Manatal 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 66% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
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
Hireology and Manatal are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Manatal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hireology | Manatal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | TH |
| Founded | 2010 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Manatal 22
11.0 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Manatal 33
3.4 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Manatal 43
1.9 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Manatal 60
0.4 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Manatal 62
0.3 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Manatal 33
0.3 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +15.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Manatal.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Manatal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 33 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 22 | +61 | +11.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 43 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 41 (F) | +16 | +15.9 |
§ 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 | Hireology | Manatal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 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 Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology 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