Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Manatal vs Radancy
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Manatal and Radancy tie at 41.
Manatal, filed under ATS-integrated, and Radancy, filed under Sourcing, tie at 41 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Manatal leads 5 of the 7 criteria and Radancy 2, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Manatal 33, Radancy 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 67% of the weighted advantage Radancy holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Manatal5
- Radancy2
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation33 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Manatal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Manatal | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | TH | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2006 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight35% of the movement so far
Manatal33Radancy421.8 weighted points to Radancy
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight52% of the movement so far
Manatal52Radancy580.9 weighted points to Radancy
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight68% of the movement so far
Manatal43Radancy360.8 weighted points to Manatal
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight83% of the movement so far
Manatal33Radancy280.8 weighted points to Manatal
- 5
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight90% of the movement so far
Manatal22Radancy200.4 weighted points to Manatal
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight97% of the movement so far
Manatal60Radancy570.4 weighted points to Manatal
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Manatal62Radancy600.2 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus Radancy, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 20 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 28 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 36 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 41F | - | -0.2 |
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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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.