§ The result
Metaview leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Metaview finishes 24 points clear of Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 30 — across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. Metaview leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Moonhub leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Metaview 80, Moonhub 18 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Metaview holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Metaview
Metaview is an AI recruiting platform whose agents transcribe and summarize interviews into structured notes and scorecards, and whose Application Review feature screens and ranks inbound applicants against an auto-generated Ideal Candidate Profile with fit ratings.
Vendor profile
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
Metaview is filed under Screening AI, Moonhub under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Metaview is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Metaview | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Metaview 80 · Moonhub 18
11.2 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Metaview 48 · Moonhub 22
3.1 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Metaview 60 · Moonhub 40
3.0 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Metaview 62 · Moonhub 38
1.9 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Metaview 38 · Moonhub 30
1.6 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Metaview 60 · Moonhub 48
1.4 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Metaview 33 · Moonhub 25
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +23.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +24 beside that +23.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Metaview minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Metaview | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 18 | +62 | +11.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 40 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 22 | +26 | +3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 30 (F) | +24 | +23.4 |
§ 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 | Metaview | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Metaview has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Metaview sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 29 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Metaview last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 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