§ The result
3 points separate Hireology and Metaview.
Hireology holds a 3-point edge over Metaview under rubric v1.0, 57 to 54, across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Hireology: Hireology is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Metaview on Data Governance Disclosure. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Hireology 50, Metaview 38 — and at a 20% weight it carries 53% 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
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
Hireology is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Metaview under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Metaview is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hireology | Metaview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2010 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Metaview 38
2.4 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Metaview 48
1.3 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Metaview 60
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
18% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Metaview 80
0.5 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Metaview 60
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Metaview 62
0.3 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Metaview 33
0.3 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Metaview.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Metaview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 80 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 48 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 54 (F) | +3 | +2.7 |
§ 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 | Metaview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 4 | 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 |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 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 Hireology and Metaview sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology 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