§ The result
Paycom takes the total, Manatal takes more of the criteria.
Paycom scores 50 and Manatal 41 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. Manatal leads more of the criteria than Paycom — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Paycom leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Paycom. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Manatal 33, Paycom 68 — and at a 20% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
Manatal and Paycom 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 | Manatal | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | TH | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Manatal 33 · Paycom 68
7.0 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Manatal 22 · Paycom 38
2.9 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Manatal 52 · Paycom 62
1.5 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Manatal 60 · Paycom 55
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Manatal 43 · Paycom 38
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Manatal 33 · Paycom 30
0.4 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Manatal 62 · Paycom 60
0.2 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus Paycom.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 68 | -35 | -7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 38 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 50 (F) | -9 | -9.6 |
§ 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 | Manatal | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom 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