§ The result
Metaview leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
The Screening cohort pairing of Metaview and Qureos comes out 54 to 33 under rubric v1.0, a 21-point lead for Metaview. Of the 7 criteria Qureos wins none, and the narrowest lead Metaview holds is on Human Oversight Design, Metaview 60 to Qureos 54. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Metaview 80, Qureos 12) 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Metaview and Qureos are both filed under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Metaview | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AE |
| Founded | 2018 | 2021 |
§ 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 · Qureos 12
12.2 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Metaview 60 · Qureos 44
2.4 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Metaview 38 · Qureos 28
2.0 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Metaview 48 · Qureos 35
1.6 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Metaview 33 · Qureos 25
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Metaview 62 · Qureos 52
0.8 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Metaview 60 · Qureos 54
0.7 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +20.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +21 beside that +20.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Metaview minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Metaview | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 12 | +68 | +12.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 44 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 33 (F) | +21 | +20.9 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Metaview last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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