§ The result
Rippling leads Manatal on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Rippling finishes 15 points clear of Manatal inside the ATS-integrated cohort under rubric v1.0: 56 against 41. Rippling leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Manatal is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Rippling leads is Customer Documentation, Manatal 62 to Rippling 64. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Manatal 33, Rippling 73 — and at a 20% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Rippling holds across the 6 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Manatal and Rippling are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Manatal is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Manatal | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | High |
| Headquarters | TH | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Manatal 33 · Rippling 73
8.0 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Manatal 22 · Rippling 42
3.6 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Manatal 33 · Rippling 45
1.8 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Manatal 52 · Rippling 64
1.8 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Manatal 43 · Rippling 47
0.5 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Manatal 62 · Rippling 64
0.2 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -15.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 73 | -40 | -8.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 42 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 45 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 64 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 47 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 64 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 56 (F) | -15 | -15.8 |
§ 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 | Manatal | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 1 | 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; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling 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