§ The result
Metaview leads Wonderlic by 11 points.
Metaview sits 11 points above Wonderlic under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 43 — with Metaview filed under Screening and Wonderlic under Assessment. Metaview leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Wonderlic leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Metaview 80, Wonderlic 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 42% 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Metaview is filed under Screening AI, Wonderlic under Assessment 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Metaview 80 · Wonderlic 48
5.8 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Metaview 60 · Wonderlic 38
3.3 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Metaview 38 · Wonderlic 52
2.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Metaview 48 · Wonderlic 33
1.8 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Metaview 33 · Wonderlic 25
1.2 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Metaview 60 · Wonderlic 52
1.0 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Metaview 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +10.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Metaview minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Metaview | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 48 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 38 | +22 | +3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 43 (F) | +11 | +10.8 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 9 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 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 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Metaview last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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