§ The result
Metaview leads Radancy by 13 points.
Metaview sits 13 points above Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 41 — with Metaview filed under Screening and Radancy under Sourcing. Metaview leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Metaview 80, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 78% of the weighted advantage Metaview holds across the 6 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Metaview is filed under Screening AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Metaview | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Metaview 80 · Radancy 20
10.8 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Metaview 48 · Radancy 36
1.4 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Metaview 38 · Radancy 42
0.8 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Metaview 33 · Radancy 28
0.8 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Metaview 60 · Radancy 57
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Metaview 60 · Radancy 58
0.3 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Metaview 62 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Metaview minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Metaview | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 20 | +60 | +10.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 28 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 36 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 41 (F) | +13 | +13.0 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Metaview last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy 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