HomeCompareIntervue.io vs JobDiva

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Intervue.io vs JobDiva

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

2 points separate Intervue.io and JobDiva.

Intervue.io (Video interview) edges JobDiva (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 31 to 29. JobDiva takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 2 for Intervue.io, whose share includes Human Oversight Design, and 4 are level. One criterion, Human Oversight Design, is both the widest raw gap (Intervue.io 54, JobDiva 40) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Intervue.io holds across the 2 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Intervue.io is filed under Video interview AI, JobDiva under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Intervue.io is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordIntervue.ioJobDiva
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersINUS
Founded20202003

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 12% weight · 59% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Intervue.io 54 · JobDiva 40

    1.7 weighted points to Intervue.io

  2. 8% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Intervue.io 50 · JobDiva 42

    0.6 weighted points to Intervue.io

  3. 18% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Intervue.io 12 · JobDiva 15

    0.5 weighted points to JobDiva

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 3 figures above sum to +1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.8.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Intervue.io minus JobDiva.

CategoryWeightIntervue.ioJobDivaΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2828--
Bias Audit Transparency18%1215-3-0.5
FRIA Support15%2222--
Data Governance Disclosure15%3838--
Human Oversight Design12%5440+14+1.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%3030--
Customer Documentation8%5042+8+0.6
Total100%31 (F)29 (F)+2+1.8

§ 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.

CriterionWeightIntervue.ioJobDiva
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%51—12—
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%71Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%61Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%51Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%307Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain208Sources on the vendor's own domain

Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; JobDiva has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Intervue.io sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for JobDiva, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Intervue.io last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
JobDiva last reviewed
September 25, 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.