Most Interview Tools Were Built for Corporate Hiring Teams. Your Staffing Agency Is Not One.

You evaluated Metaview. Or maybe you are using it right now. And something does not fit.

Maybe it is the phone calls. Your recruiters do 8 to 12 conversations per day and most of them happen on the phone, not on Zoom. The tool captures the video interviews perfectly. The phone screens, intake calls, and in-person meetings produce nothing. No transcript. No structured data. No candidate report in the ATS. Just whatever the recruiter remembers to type up between calls.

Maybe it is the ATS. Your agency runs on Bullhorn, Carerix, OTYS, or Byner. The integration options you see are Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, SmartRecruiters. Built for a different market. Built for corporate talent acquisition teams hiring 20 people a year, not staffing agencies placing 20 people a week.

Maybe it is the output. You get a transcript and a summary. Useful. But your recruiter still opens the CV in another tab, cross-references what the candidate said against the job description, writes the evaluation manually, and formats it for the client. The tool solved the easiest 20% of the post-call admin and left the hardest 80% untouched.

That gap is costing real money. A team of 15 recruiters, each spending 15 to 20 minutes per interview on manual evaluation and ATS data entry, burns through 37 to 50 hours per week on admin instead of placements. At €50 per hour, that is €7,500 to €10,000 per month in lost productivity. And every hour spent on admin is an hour not spent on the candidate conversations that generate revenue.

Bureau Blaauw, a specialised recruitment firm running 40 interviews per week across ten consultants, tested this with three team members. First round interviews happened online. Second rounds happened in person. The tool captured both. The pilot team reported that interviewers could engage fully with candidates instead of splitting attention with note-taking, that report generation was automated, and that the structured output let them identify the right candidates faster and share evaluations with hiring managers immediately.

This page is an honest comparison between Metaview and In2Dialog. Where Metaview wins, where In2Dialog wins, and which one fits the way your agency actually operates.

Where Metaview Wins

Metaview has earned its market position. It has been around longer, has strong brand recognition in the US and UK, and has built deep integrations with the ATS platforms that dominate enterprise hiring. Credit where it is due.

Enterprise ATS ecosystem

Metaview integrates natively with Greenhouse, Ashby, Lever, Gem, and SmartRecruiters. If your agency places candidates through one of those systems, Metaview’s integration depth is hard to match. The scorecard pre-fill and rubric mapping work well when the hiring process is structured around those tools. For agencies operating inside the US or UK enterprise ATS stack, this alone can be the deciding factor.

Expanding platform

Metaview has moved beyond notetaking into AI sourcing, application review, and job post generation. Each module is priced separately so teams can add capabilities over time. For organisations wanting to build a full AI recruiting stack around a single vendor, that breadth gives them a path forward without switching platforms later.

Scorecard and rubric structure

Metaview maps candidate answers against a competency rubric and pre-fills scorecards inside the ATS. For structured interview programmes where every interviewer follows the same evaluation framework, this reduces variance between interviewers and speeds up the debrief. Corporate talent teams running panel interviews across multiple hiring managers get measurable consistency from this.

Free tier

Metaview offers a free plan with 25 conversations per month and 14-day history. That is enough for a solo recruiter to test properly before committing budget. The Pro plan starts at $50 per user per month on an annual contract.

Where In2Dialog Wins

In2Dialog was built inside the European staffing industry by people who have conducted thousands of recruitment interviews. The product exists because the founders experienced the same gap you are feeling right now. Video-only tools that miss most of the conversations your agency has every day.

All conversation types

This is the single biggest difference between the two platforms. In2Dialog captures video calls, phone calls, and in-person interviews through a native mobile app. No bot joins the call on phone and in-person. No candidate download required. The recruiter opens the app, starts the conversation, and the system handles the rest.

Metaview’s documentation focuses on video conferencing support through Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams. For agencies where the majority of daily conversations happen on the phone or face to face, that gap means the most valuable candidate data never gets structured. The intake call where the client mentioned a two-week start deadline. The phone screen where the candidate revealed a salary expectation 30% above budget. The in-person meeting where the candidate hesitated when asked about relocation. None of it reaches the ATS. None of it becomes searchable. None of it informs the next recruiter who picks up that candidate file. The data that could have accelerated the placement disappears the moment the call ends.

The context layer

This is where In2Dialog moves beyond conversation intelligence into interview intelligence built for staffing.

In2Dialog does not just transcribe and summarise. The recruiter combines the transcript with the CV and the job description. The system then generates a structured candidate report with fit assessment. It shows where the candidate’s experience aligns with the requirements, where the gaps are, and what needs follow-up.

A transcript tells you what was said. A summary gives you the highlights. The context layer tells you whether the candidate is right for the role. That is the difference between a document a recruiter has to interpret and an evaluation they can send to the client within minutes. In a market where the agency that presents first with the best data wins the placement, those minutes are the margin between filling the role and losing it to a competitor.

European ATS integrations

In2Dialog integrates with Bullhorn, Carerix, OTYS, Byner, Salesforce, Ubeeo, and Tigris. These are the systems that staffing agencies in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany actually run their business on. Data populates specific fields in the candidate record automatically. Salary in the salary field. Notice period in the notice period field. Evaluation in the evaluation section.

That field-level integration means the ATS becomes a reliable source of candidate intelligence instead of a dumping ground for unstructured notes. Pipeline reporting becomes accurate. Candidate searches return meaningful results. Salary benchmarking across the pipeline reflects what candidates actually said, not what a recruiter approximated from memory two hours later.

GDPR-first architecture

In2Dialog stores all data within the European Union. Full GDPR alignment including DPA on request. End-to-end HTTPS encryption on every request. For agencies operating under European data protection requirements, this removes the compliance conversation from the procurement process entirely. No legal review needed on data residency. No risk assessment on cross-border transfers.

Fixed, transparent pricing

In2Dialog runs on fixed 12-month contracts with clear per-user pricing. All features included. No per-agent add-ons. No module stacking where the total cost depends on how many AI capabilities you switch on. You know what you pay and what you get before the contract is signed. For agency finance teams forecasting recruitment technology costs, predictable spend matters more than a low entry price that scales unpredictably.

Side-by-Side Comparison

The Question That Decides It

What percentage of your team’s conversations happen on video calls versus phone calls and in-person meetings?

If the answer is “almost all video,” Metaview is a strong choice. The rubric mapping, the scorecard integration, the enterprise ATS depth. It all works well for that workflow.

If the answer is “a mix of video, phone, and in-person,” you need a tool that captures all three channels. A tool that only covers video leaves the majority of your candidate data unstructured and outside the ATS. Your team ends up with structured reports for some conversations and nothing for others. That inconsistency makes it impossible to compare candidates fairly across your pipeline. And it means every placement decision is based on partial information.

If your agency uses Bullhorn NL, Carerix, or OTYS, the ATS integration question answers itself. Metaview integrates with the US enterprise stack. In2Dialog integrates with the European staffing stack. The data needs to land in the right fields in your system, not in a notes dump that someone still has to process manually before the client ever sees it.

And if you want the output to go beyond a transcript and summary, if you want a structured candidate report that combines what was said with the CV and the job description and tells you whether the match is right, that is the context layer. That is where interview intelligence separates from conversation intelligence. And that is what In2Dialog was built to do.

See It Running Inside Your ATS

The fastest way to compare is to see In2Dialog working with your actual system. We set up a live demo using your ATS, your job descriptions, and your team’s workflow. Your data, your process, your daily volume.

If Metaview turns out to be the better fit, we will tell you. The goal is that you pick the right tool, not that you pick ours.

Boek een demo