§ The result
Tribepad takes the total, Metaview takes more of the criteria.
Tribepad (ATS-integrated) edges Metaview (Screening) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 54. Metaview leads more of the criteria than Tribepad — 5 to 2 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Tribepad leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Tribepad. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Metaview 38, Tribepad 56) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 83% of the weighted advantage Tribepad holds across the 2 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
Tribepad
Tribepad is a UK applicant tracking system whose built-in Sidekick AI assistant scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted skills and generates candidate summaries, SWOT analyses, job descriptions, salary suggestions and interview questions.
§ The record
Metaview is filed under Screening AI, Tribepad under ATS-integrated 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 | Tribepad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2008 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Metaview 38 · Tribepad 56
3.6 weighted points to Tribepad
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Metaview 48 · Tribepad 54
0.7 weighted points to Tribepad
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Metaview 60 · Tribepad 56
0.6 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Metaview 33 · Tribepad 30
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
18% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Metaview 80 · Tribepad 78
0.4 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Metaview 62 · Tribepad 58
0.3 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Metaview 60 · Tribepad 58
0.2 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Metaview minus Tribepad.
| Category | Weight | Metaview | Tribepad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 56 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 78 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 56 (F) | -2 | -2.4 |
§ 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 | Tribepad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Metaview has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; Tribepad has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Metaview and Tribepad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Tribepad, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Metaview last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tribepad 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