§ The result
Metaview leads JobDiva on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 25 points between Metaview (Screening) and JobDiva (ATS-integrated): 54 for Metaview, 29 for JobDiva. Metaview leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; JobDiva leads none. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (JobDiva 15, Metaview 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 47% of the weighted advantage Metaview holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
JobDiva
JobDiva is an all-in-one ATS, CRM, onboarding, back-office and VMS-synchronization platform for staffing agencies, with AI features including DivaMatch candidate-to-job scoring, AI-enhanced matching and semantic search, resume harvesting and generative outreach.
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
JobDiva 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 and Colorado AI Act. Only Metaview is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | JobDiva | Metaview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2003 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
JobDiva 15 · Metaview 80
11.7 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
JobDiva 38 · Metaview 60
3.3 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
JobDiva 40 · Metaview 60
2.4 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
JobDiva 30 · Metaview 48
2.2 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
JobDiva 28 · Metaview 38
2.0 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
JobDiva 22 · Metaview 33
1.6 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
JobDiva 42 · Metaview 62
1.6 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -24.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -25 beside that -24.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is JobDiva minus Metaview.
| Category | Weight | JobDiva | Metaview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 15 | 80 | -65 | -11.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 33 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 29 (F) | 54 (F) | -25 | -24.8 |
§ 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 | JobDiva | Metaview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 2 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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% | 20 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
JobDiva has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 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 Metaview sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for JobDiva, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- JobDiva 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