§ The result
Sova Assessment leads Manatal by 7 points.
Sova Assessment scores 48 and Manatal 41 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Sova Assessment leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Manatal leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 2 are level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Manatal 33, Sova Assessment 55 — and at a 20% weight it carries 53% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment 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
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
§ The record
Manatal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sova Assessment under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Manatal | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | High |
| Headquarters | TH | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Manatal 33 · Sova Assessment 55
4.4 weighted points to Sova Assessment
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Manatal 22 · Sova Assessment 38
2.9 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Manatal 33 · Sova Assessment 40
1.1 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Manatal 60 · Sova Assessment 55
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Manatal 43 · Sova Assessment 40
0.4 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -7.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 55 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 40 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 48 (F) | -7 | -7.4 |
§ 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 | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment 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.
§ Where next