§ The result
Metaview leads Pin on all 7 criteria.
Metaview sits 14 points above Pin under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 40 — with Metaview filed under Screening and Pin under Sourcing. Of the 7 criteria Pin wins none, and the narrowest lead Metaview holds is on FRIA Support, Metaview 33 to Pin 30. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Metaview 80, Pin 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Metaview holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Pin
Pin is an AI recruiting agent that searches a database of 850M+ candidate profiles, scores and ranks candidates for fit, can automatically screen out non-matches (each with a one-line reason), and runs outreach and interview scheduling.
§ The record
Metaview is filed under Screening AI, Pin 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 | Pin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2024 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Metaview 80 · Pin 35
8.1 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Metaview 38 · Pin 30
1.6 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Metaview 60 · Pin 50
1.5 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Metaview 60 · Pin 50
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Metaview 62 · Pin 55
0.6 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Metaview 33 · Pin 30
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Metaview 48 · Pin 45
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +13.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Metaview minus Pin.
| Category | Weight | Metaview | Pin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 35 | +45 | +8.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 40 (F) | +14 | +13.8 |
§ 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 | Metaview | Pin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 32 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Metaview has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; Pin has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 5 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains, and 37 for Pin, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Metaview last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pin 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