Interview intelligence platforms promise to record your interviews, transcribe them, generate notes automatically, and give you insights into interview quality. Most of them deliver transcripts that need heavy editing and "insights" that are useless.

Metaview is one of the better ones. It records and transcribes interviews (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, phone), generates notes that are actually usable, and provides interview analytics that help you coach hiring teams. It's not perfect, but it's significantly better than manually taking notes or using generic transcription tools.

User reviews on G2 rate it 4.6/5 stars, with recruiters praising the time savings and note quality. The complaints? Mostly about pricing and occasional transcription errors in accents or technical jargon.

What Metaview Actually Does

Metaview is an AI-powered interview assistant built specifically for recruiting. Here's what it does:

Records and transcribes interviews: Metaview joins your Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams calls and records them. It also works with phone interviews if you dial through Metaview's phone bridge. Transcription accuracy is solid - user reviews report 90-95% accuracy for clear English speakers, lower for heavy accents or technical terminology.

Generates interview notes automatically: After the interview, Metaview generates structured notes summarizing key points, candidate responses to specific questions, strengths, concerns, and overall assessment. The notes are based on your interview scorecard or job description, so they're organized around the competencies you're evaluating.

This is the killer feature. Instead of spending 15-20 minutes after every interview writing up notes, Metaview gives you a draft in 2-3 minutes. You review, edit if needed, and submit to your ATS. User reviews consistently cite this as the biggest time saver.

Syncs with your ATS: Metaview integrates with major ATS platforms like Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, and others. Interview notes automatically sync to candidate records, so you're not copying and pasting between tools. Recordings and transcripts are attached to candidate profiles for reference.

Interview analytics and coaching: Metaview analyzes interview patterns across your team. It shows you which interviewers ask structured questions vs. vague ones, who dominates conversations vs. letting candidates speak, and where interview quality varies. This is useful for coaching hiring managers and improving interview consistency.

Question prompts and guidance: During live interviews, Metaview can show you suggested questions based on the job description and interview stage. It's not intrusive - just helpful prompts so you don't forget to ask important questions.

Searchable interview library: All interviews are stored, transcribed, and searchable. If you're trying to remember what a candidate said about a specific topic three weeks ago, you can search the transcript instead of scrubbing through recordings.

What It Costs

Metaview's pricing isn't published on their website - you have to "contact sales," which is annoying. Based on user discussions on Reddit and G2 reviews, here's what people report:

Estimated pricing: $50-$100 per user per month, depending on team size and contract length. Some users report $60/user/month for annual contracts on teams of 5-10 people.

What's included: Unlimited interview recordings, transcriptions, AI note generation, ATS integrations, analytics, and support.

Cost comparison: Generic transcription tools like Otter.ai cost $10-20/month per user but don't generate recruiting-specific notes or integrate with ATS. Competitor interview intelligence tools like BrightHire and Metaview are in the same $50-$100/month range. Metaview's pricing is competitive but not cheap.

The ROI calculation: if you're conducting 10-20 interviews per week and Metaview saves you 15 minutes per interview on note-taking, that's 2.5-5 hours saved per week. At recruiter hourly rates, Metaview pays for itself quickly in time savings alone.

What Metaview Does Well

Note quality: User reviews consistently praise Metaview's AI-generated notes as accurate and well-structured. The notes aren't perfect, but they're 80-90% of the way there, requiring only minor edits. That's way better than starting from scratch or working with raw transcripts.

ATS integrations: Metaview's ATS integrations are smooth, according to user reviews. Notes sync automatically to candidate records in Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, and other platforms. No manual copying and pasting. Users rate this 4.5+ stars.

Transcription accuracy for standard English: Transcription is solid for native English speakers with standard accents. User reviews report 90-95% accuracy in ideal conditions. That's comparable to industry-leading transcription tools.

Time savings: Users report saving 10-20 minutes per interview on note-taking. For recruiters conducting dozens of interviews per week, that's substantial time savings. This is the most frequently cited benefit in reviews.

Interview coaching insights: Metaview's analytics help TA leaders identify which interviewers need coaching. Reports show talk time ratios (interviewer vs. candidate), question quality, consistency across interviews, and adherence to structured interview frameworks. User reviews from TA leaders rate this feature highly for improving hiring quality.

Non-intrusive UX: Metaview runs in the background without disrupting interviews. It's not a bot that announces itself at the beginning of calls or shows distracting interfaces during interviews. User reviews appreciate the minimalist approach.

What Metaview Does Poorly (Or Doesn't Do)

Let's talk about the problems.

Transcription struggles with accents and jargon: Like all AI transcription tools, Metaview's accuracy drops with heavy accents, non-native English speakers, and technical jargon. User reviews report 70-85% accuracy in these scenarios, which means more manual editing. This is an industry-wide problem, not unique to Metaview, but it's still frustrating.

Pricing transparency: Metaview doesn't publish pricing on their website, forcing you to "contact sales" and sit through a demo before getting a quote. User reviews consistently complain about this. Companies that hide pricing make buyers suspicious about cost and waste everyone's time with sales calls.

Limited use outside recruiting: Metaview is built specifically for recruiting interviews. If you want a general meeting assistant for sales calls, customer interviews, or internal meetings, use Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, or Fathom instead. Metaview's features are recruiting-specific and don't translate well to other use cases.

Candidate consent and privacy: Recording interviews requires candidate consent in some jurisdictions. Metaview handles consent disclosure, but some candidates are uncomfortable being recorded. User reviews report that 5-10% of candidates decline recording or seem nervous about it, which creates inconsistency in your interview documentation.

No live sentiment analysis: Some competitor tools like HireVue offer real-time sentiment analysis or candidate engagement scoring during interviews. Metaview doesn't do this. It focuses on transcription, notes, and post-interview analytics rather than live interview guidance. Whether that's a problem or a feature depends on your perspective.

Integration limitations: Metaview integrates with major ATS platforms but not all of them. If you use a less common ATS or custom-built recruiting system, integration might not be available. Check compatibility before buying.

How Metaview Compares to Competitors

The interview intelligence space is competitive. Here's how Metaview stacks up:

Metaview vs. BrightHire: BrightHire has similar features (recording, transcription, notes, analytics) at similar pricing ($50-$80/user/month). User reviews suggest BrightHire has slightly better analytics; Metaview has slightly better note generation quality. Both are solid options - choice comes down to which ATS integrations and UX you prefer.

Metaview vs. Otter.ai: Otter.ai is cheaper ($10-20/month) but is a general transcription tool, not recruiting-specific. It won't generate structured interview notes or integrate with your ATS. Otter is fine if you just want transcripts; Metaview is better if you want recruiting-specific features.

Metaview vs. Spark Hire: Spark Hire focuses on asynchronous video interviews and structured interview workflows. Metaview focuses on live interview recording and note generation. Different use cases - Spark Hire for one-way video screening, Metaview for live interview documentation.

Metaview vs. HireVue: HireVue is enterprise-focused with video interviewing, AI assessments, and structured interview tools. It's more expensive ($100-$200+/user/month) and more complex. Metaview is simpler and cheaper, focused specifically on note-taking and analytics for live interviews.

Who Should Use Metaview

Recruiters conducting 10+ interviews per week: If you're spending hours every week writing interview notes, Metaview's time savings justify the cost ($50-$100/month). User reviews from agency recruiters and in-house recruiters consistently report 10-20 minutes saved per interview.

TA teams needing interview consistency: If you're trying to implement structured interviewing and improve interview quality across hiring managers, Metaview's analytics and coaching features help identify problems and track improvement. User reviews from TA leaders rate the coaching features highly.

Companies using Greenhouse, Lever, or Ashby: Metaview's integrations with these ATS platforms are strong, according to user reviews. If you use one of these systems, the workflow is seamless.

Remote-first companies: If all your interviews are on Zoom, Teams, or Google Meet, Metaview's virtual interview recording works perfectly. User reviews from remote companies rate it highly for distributed teams.

Who Should NOT Use Metaview

Recruiters doing <5 interviews per week: At $50-$100/month per user, Metaview is expensive for low-volume recruiting. If you're only conducting a few interviews per week, manually taking notes is probably more cost-effective.

Companies in highly regulated industries with recording restrictions: If you work in industries with strict recording and data storage regulations (healthcare, finance, government), Metaview's interview recording might create compliance issues. Check with legal before implementing.

Companies wanting AI-powered candidate assessments: Metaview generates notes and analyzes interview quality, but it doesn't score candidates or provide AI-driven hiring recommendations. If you want AI assessment tools, look at HireVue or Pymetrics instead.

Small teams on tight budgets: At $50-$100/user/month, Metaview is a significant expense for 2-3 person recruiting teams. Consider cheaper alternatives like Otter.ai ($10-20/month) if budget is tight, even if it means less recruiting-specific functionality.

The Bottom Line

Metaview is a solid interview intelligence tool that saves recruiters time on note-taking and helps TA teams improve interview consistency. At $50-$100/month per user, it's expensive but delivers ROI if you're conducting high volumes of interviews.

User reviews rate it 4.6/5 stars on G2, with praise for note quality, ATS integrations, time savings, and interview analytics. Complaints focus on pricing transparency, transcription accuracy with accents, and occasional technical issues.

If you're spending hours every week writing interview notes and want AI assistance that's actually helpful, Metaview is worth trying. If you're doing low-volume recruiting or just need basic transcription, cheaper alternatives like Otter.ai might be sufficient.

Pricing: $50-$100/month per user (estimated, contact for quote)

Best for: High-volume recruiters, TA teams improving interview quality, companies using Greenhouse/Lever/Ashby

Not for: Low-volume recruiting, highly regulated industries with recording restrictions, small teams on tight budgets

User rating: 4.6/5 stars on G2

Try it: metaview.ai