§ The result
1 point separates softgarden and Manatal.
Under rubric v1.0, softgarden and Manatal finish 1 point apart, 42 to 41, as two ATS-integrated entries. Manatal and softgarden each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split softgarden holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Manatal 33, softgarden 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 81% of the weighted advantage softgarden holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Manatal and softgarden 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | TH | DE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Manatal 33 · softgarden 42
1.8 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Manatal 33 · softgarden 30
0.4 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Manatal 62 · softgarden 58
0.3 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Manatal 52 · softgarden 54
0.3 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Manatal 60 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Manatal 43 · softgarden 44
0.1 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.2 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 -1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 22 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 44 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 42 (F) | -1 | -1.2 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden last reviewed
- September 25, 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