Side-by-side · Rubric js-v1.0
LoopCV vs Sonara
LoopCV
LoopCV is a job-search automation platform that continuously matches a job seeker's CV to postings across 30+ job boards and applies on their behalf via ATS form-fills, LinkedIn Easy Apply, and templated emails to recruiters.
Substantial gaps
Auto-apply
Sonara
Sonara is an AI auto-apply service (now owned by BOLD LLC) that scans job boards, matches openings to a job seeker's uploaded resume and preferences, and auto-fills and submits applications on the user's behalf from a single tracking dashboard.
Substantial gaps
Auto-apply
The result
1 point separates LoopCV and Sonara.
Within the Auto-apply cohort, LoopCV edges Sonara by 1 point under rubric js-v1.0, 50 to 49. LoopCV leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Pricing & Cancellation Fairness, while Sonara leads 3, including Data & Credential Safety. Sonara takes the heaviest weighted swing, Data & Credential Safety at 20% (LoopCV 40, Sonara 50), 49% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Pricing & Cancellation Fairness, LoopCV 65 to Sonara 45.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- LoopCV4
- Sonara3
- Widest raw gap
- Pricing & Cancellation Fairness65 vs 45
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Data & Credential Safety20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
LoopCV and Sonara are both filed under Auto-apply tools. They also share 2 secondary categories: Job matching and Tracker.
| Record | LoopCV | Sonara |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | GR | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2020 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Data & Credential Safety
20% weight22% of the movement so far
LoopCV40Sonara502.0 weighted points to Sonara
- 2
Pricing & Cancellation Fairness
10% weight44% of the movement so far
LoopCV65Sonara452.0 weighted points to LoopCV
- 3
Employer & ATS Legitimacy
15% weight60% of the movement so far
LoopCV38Sonara481.5 weighted points to Sonara
- 4
User Control & Transparency
15% weight74% of the movement so far
LoopCV60Sonara521.2 weighted points to LoopCV
- 5
Application Honesty
20% weight85% of the movement so far
LoopCV55Sonara501.0 weighted points to LoopCV
- 6
Support & Accountability
8% weight93% of the movement so far
LoopCV68Sonara580.8 weighted points to LoopCV
- 7
Effectiveness Evidence
12% weight100% of the movement so far
LoopCV35Sonara400.6 weighted points to Sonara
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.9.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is LoopCV minus Sonara, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | LoopCV | Sonara | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application Honesty | 20% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Data & Credential Safety | 20% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -2.0 |
| User Control & Transparency | 15% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Employer & ATS Legitimacy | 15% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Effectiveness Evidence | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Pricing & Cancellation Fairness | 10% | 65 | 45 | +20 | +2.0 |
| Support & Accountability | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 50F | 49F | +1 | +0.9 |
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 | LoopCV | Sonara | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Application Honesty | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| Data & Credential Safety | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| User Control & Transparency | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | — |
| Employer & ATS Legitimacy | 15% | 1 | 0 | — | 2 | 0 | — |
| Effectiveness Evidence | 12% | 2 | 0 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| Pricing & Cancellation Fairness | 10% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | — |
| Support & Accountability | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | — |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 3 | — |
LoopCV has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; Sonara has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LoopCV sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for LoopCV, across 6 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sonara, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- js-v1.0
- LoopCV last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sonara 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
Scored against