Recruiting AI agents, licensed per module
Primary sources checkedMetaview
Set of recruiting agents sold separately: interview notes, candidate sourcing and application review, each with its own free tier and its own price.
The short answer
- Best for
- A team with one clear bottleneck: notes, sourcing or application review
- Not ideal for
- Anyone expecting one price for the platform: the bundle is quoted, not published
- Price
- Free per agent, then Notes USD 60 and Sourcing USD 100 per user, Application Review USD 150 per month
- Closest alternative
- BrightHireBetter when interview consistency across interviewers is the problem, rather than breadth across sourcing and screening
At a glance
- Recruitment fitStrong
- Ease of useUnknown
- ImplementationFair
- Price transparencyFair
- Value for moneyUnknown
- ScalabilityFair
Why these assessments
- Recruitment fitStrong
- Every agent is written in hiring terms, and the notetaker produces interview notes rather than a generic meeting summary.
- Ease of useUnknown
- Nobody at SourcrLab has run these agents on real roles, and the vendor's own pages are not evidence of day-to-day usability.
- ImplementationFair
- Each agent has a free tier large enough to test with, but retention has to be agreed by contacting the vendor and the ATS mapping per agent is not published.
- Price transparencyFair
- Three ladders are published in full, but the bundled platform, the Reports add-on fee and any annual discount are not.
- Value for moneyUnknown
- Output quality on real roles is untested here, and the consolidation case rests on a bundle price that is not published, so there is nothing solid to weigh the cost against.
- ScalabilityFair
- Application Review is flat-priced with unlimited users, which scales well, but Notes and Sourcing are per user and Sourcing Pro caps at 200 profiles a month.
Our reading of the evidence on this page. No score, no formula.
Where it sits
- Discover
- Apply
- Screen
- Interview
- Decision
The SourcrLab bottom line
It stopped being a notetaker and became a set of agents you license one at a time. That is honest pricing, and it means the interesting question is which of your problems you are actually buying for. Note the billing shapes differ: Sourcing and Notes are per user, Application Review is a flat monthly price with unlimited users. Every agent has a free tier that is large enough to test with, at 100 profiles, 25 calls and 50 applications respectively.
Best fit
A team with one clearly identified bottleneck. Interview notes that nobody writes, screening that nobody has time for, or sourcing that nobody runs, each solvable on its own without licensing the rest.
Think twice if
Anyone expecting one price for the whole platform. Three agents at their Pro tiers is USD 100 and USD 60 per user plus USD 150 a month, and the complete suite is a sales conversation rather than a published number.
SourcrLab assessment
Everything on this page comes from the vendor's own pages, checked on the dates below. SourcrLab has not used this product in real recruitment work, so you will not find a first-hand opinion here.
Why choose Metaview?
You license the problem you have
The vendor states that every user gets access to the platform and pays only for the agents they need. A recruiter who wants notes does not carry the cost of a sourcing agent they will not open.
Every agent has a usable free tier
First 100 profiles sourced, 25 calls a month with transcription, 50 applications a month reviewed. That is enough to judge output quality on your own roles before any budget conversation, which is rare in this category.
Application Review is not priced per user
USD 150 a month for 500 reviews with unlimited users. Screening is work that hiring managers and coordinators touch as well as recruiters, and a per-seat price on that would land badly.
The extras are not metered separately
Assistant questions and note regeneration are stated as included in the subscription with no credits and no usage limits, and Reports is an add-on at a flat fee rather than per report. Fewer moving parts in the bill.
Main trade-offs
Three agents mean three lines on the invoice
Sourcing Pro at USD 100 per user, Notes Pro at USD 60 per user and Application Review Pro at USD 150 a month are separate purchases. For two recruiters wanting sourcing and notes, that is USD 320 a month before Application Review.
The full platform has no published price
The Agentic Recruiting Platform, described as the complete suite with all agents, is quoted through sales. So the consolidation argument, which is the reason to look at Metaview rather than three point tools, is exactly the part you cannot price yourself.
Sourcing Pro is 200 profiles a month
At USD 100 per user that is 50 cents a sourced profile, and unlimited sourcing means moving to Max at USD 300 per user. For a desk running several open roles, the step is more likely than the entry price suggests.
Screening at volume is a decision, not a setting
An agent that reviews 500 applications a month is making a first pass over people. Ask how Application Review is classified for your specific use case, and document where human review remains in the workflow, before you switch it on rather than after.
Notes still needs a bot in the call
It is an interview notetaker, so the same disclosure question applies as with any recorder: the candidate has to be told, and you need somewhere to put the recording afterwards. The free tier at 25 calls a month is a fair way to find out whether your interviewers accept it.
Retention is a conversation, not a setting you find
The documentation says customers retain ownership of their data and can decide on the retention period, and asks you to contact them to change it for your organisation. So the period is adjustable but not self-service, and the default is not published. Settle it before interviews are recorded, not after.
Pricing and buying reality
Free per agent, then from USD 60 per user / month
- Notetaker: Free USD 0 per user with 25 calls a month and basic transcription; Pro USD 60 per user per month with unlimited calls and priority processing; Enterprise tailored
- Sourcing: Free USD 0 with the first 100 profiles sourced; Pro USD 100 per user per month with 200 profiles a month; Max USD 300 per user per month with unlimited profiles; all with infinite concurrent searches
- Application Review: Free USD 0 with 50 applications a month and basic screening; Pro USD 150 a month with 500 reviews a month, unlimited users and advanced AI evaluation; Enterprise tailored
- Agentic Recruiting Platform, the complete suite with all agents: custom pricing through sales
- Assistant questions and note regeneration are stated as included with no credits or usage limits; Reports is an add-on at a flat fee
What we do not know
- What the full platform bundle costs, and whether bundling discounts the per-agent prices
- The flat fee for the Reports add-on
- Which of the listed integrations each agent uses, and on which tier
- Whether sequencing requires a connected mailbox or a LinkedIn seat
- The default retention period, which the documentation does not state
- Whether annual billing exists and what it changes
Checked on the vendor's pricing page, August 2026. Metaview pricing page, all three agent selectors read in a browser
How it fits your stack
Works with
- An ATS: the vendor's integrations directory names dozens, including Greenhouse, Ashby, Lever, Workable, Teamtailor, Bullhorn and Recruit CRM
- Calendars, plus Zapier and an MCP integration for AI agents
- Your interview calls, through the notetaker
- Your applicant flow, through the review agent
Likely replaces
- Writing interview notes by hand after the call
- A general meeting recorder, if interview context is what you needed
- A first-pass CV read, on the plans that include application review
May overlap with
- tl;dv, Fireflies and OLVA on the notes half, at lower prices and without hiring context
- hireEZ, SeekOut and Fetcher on the sourcing half
- The screening features of your ATS, on application review
Check before buying
- Which single agent solves your actual bottleneck, since they are licensed separately
- Whether the billing shape fits: per user for sourcing and notes, flat for application review
- Where a human confirms a rejection when the review agent screens at volume
- How notes and reviews reach your ATS
Metaview vs alternatives
Products a buyer would genuinely put next to this one, with the reason you would pick each instead.
Choose tl;dv if you only want the recording and transcript and the hiring context is not what you are paying for: unlimited recording sits on its free plan.
Compare BrightHire directly on the interview half, where consistency across interviewers rather than agent breadth is the problem being solved.
Consider hireEZ if sourcing is the only agent you would use, and you want a purpose-built sourcing platform rather than a sourcing module.
Consider OLVA when help during the conversation matters more than a hiring-shaped record of it afterwards.
Used Metaview?
Tell other recruiters what worked, what did not, and who it suits. Positive, mixed or critical — all useful.
Evidence
- Notetaker: Free 25 calls, Pro USD 60 per user, Enterprise tailored — checked against a primary source: Metaview pricing page, all three agent selectors read in a browser
- Sourcing: Free first 100 profiles, Pro USD 100 for 200 a month, Max USD 300 unlimited — checked against a primary source: Metaview pricing page, all three agent selectors read in a browser
- Application Review: Free 50 a month, Pro USD 150 a month for 500 reviews with unlimited users — checked against a primary source: Metaview pricing page, all three agent selectors read in a browser
- Agents are licensed separately, with the full suite quoted — checked against a primary source: Metaview pricing page, all three agent selectors read in a browser
- Assistant questions and note regeneration included without credits — vendor claim, not independently verified: Metaview pricing page, all three agent selectors read in a browser
- Reports is an add-on at a flat fee — vendor claim, not independently verified: Metaview pricing page, all three agent selectors read in a browser
- Customer data is stored on AWS in the UK — checked against a primary source: Metaview privacy and security documentation on hosting and retention
- Customers own their data and can decide the retention period, by contacting the vendor — checked against a primary source: Metaview privacy and security documentation on hosting and retention
- An integrations directory naming dozens of ATS systems — checked against a primary source: Metaview integrations directory
- Which integrations each agent uses, and on which tier — not enough evidence
- The default retention period — not enough evidence
- Price of the full platform bundle — not enough evidence
- SourcrLab hands-on use — not enough evidence
Last reviewed: August 2026. How SourcrLab verifies information
Work at Metaview?
Email us to verify this profile or suggest a factual update.