OVI is an AI-native applicant tracking system (ATS) at ovi-me.com. You chat with AI agents Sora and Milo to source candidates, screen CVs, and run AI voice interviews in one workflow.

How do I sign in to OVI?

Sign in to OVI at https://ovi-me.com/auth with your work email or Google account. New teams can start a free trial from the homepage.

OVI AI refers to OVI's hiring agents — Milo for CV screening and Sora for sourcing — built into the AI-native ATS so recruiting teams chat to hire instead of clicking through traditional ATS screens.

OVI is the AI-native ATS where you chat to hire. Two AI agents — Sora for sourcing and Milo for screening — find candidates, score every CV, and run AI interviews, all controlled from a single chat.

What does "chat to hire" mean?

Chat to hire is OVI's AI-native hiring workflow: instead of clicking through a traditional ATS, you describe what you need in chat and OVI's AI agents source candidates, screen applicants, run AI interviews, and send outreach for you.

What is an AI-native ATS?

An AI-native ATS is an applicant tracking system built around AI agents rather than forms and pipelines. OVI's AI chat ATS lets recruiters source, screen, interview, and follow up through conversation — the agents do the work and surface only the candidates worth meeting.

Who are Sora and Milo?

Sora is OVI's AI sourcing agent — she scans LinkedIn, the open web, and your ATS history to find best-fit candidates and reach out in your name. Milo is OVI's AI screening agent — he scores every applicant against your rubric and surfaces a ranked shortlist.

How do OVI's AI interviews work?

OVI runs async AI interviews for every shortlisted candidate and returns scores, transcripts, and recordings — so your team only meets the people worth meeting.

AI Candidate Screening Platforms 2026: Six Platforms Compared on Compliance, Cost, and Integration

By Tim Kreling, Co-Founder, OVI

Published 2026-08-23

Choosing the Wrong AI Screening Platform Is Now a Legal Liability

New York City's Local Law 144 fines start at $500 for a first violation and compound at $1,500 per day for every day the violation continues — with no statutory cap. A December 2025 Comptroller audit found enforcement had been "ineffective," signaling tighter scrutiny through 2026 and beyond. Meanwhile, the class-action lawsuit Derek Mobley v. Workday survived multiple dismissal motions, with class notice authorized in February 2026. The allegation: systematic discrimination against Black, disabled, and older applicants filtered by AI embedded in a mainstream ATS.

For HR leaders evaluating AI screening tools, the message is clear — platform selection is a compliance decision, not just a product decision. Below, we compare six platforms on the criteria that matter most: regulatory posture, cost of ownership, and integration depth.

The 2026 Regulatory Landscape

Four mandates now define the compliance floor for any employer using AI in hiring:

NYC Local Law 144 (effective July 2023, enforcement tightening 2026): Annual independent bias audit for automated employment decision tools (AEDTs). Candidates must be notified 10 business days before the tool is used, and an alternative assessment must be offered.
Illinois HB 3773 (effective January 1, 2026): Prohibits AI tools with discriminatory effect in employment decisions and bans the use of zip codes as proxies for protected characteristics. Disclosure is required whenever AI is used in hiring.
Colorado SB 24-205 (effective June 30, 2026): Requires annual impact assessments aligned with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Affected individuals have human-review rights. A small-employer exemption applies to companies with fewer than 50 employees.
California CCPA ADMT (finalized October 2025): No formal audit mandate, but anti-bias testing evidence is material in disputes. Opt-out rights apply to automated employment decisions.

The combined effect is that any screening tool making or substantially supporting hiring decisions now requires documented compliance infrastructure — not optional, not aspirational.

Enterprise Comparison: Six Platforms at a Glance

Platform	Pricing	Bias-Audit Posture	Key Integrations	Best For
Eightfold AI	$150k+/yr enterprise; $7–10/employee/mo mid-tier	Published bias reports; claims 25% diversity lift	Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, Greenhouse, Lever	Talent intelligence, internal mobility, workforce planning
HireVue	$35k+/yr (1,000 interviews); $100k+ enterprise	Strongest compliance posture — EEOC-aligned audit trails; 15% gender-bias reduction (internal audits)	Oracle HCM, iCIMS, 50+ integrations	Structured video interviews, enterprise compliance
Paradox (Olivia)	$5k–$50k/yr per module	Conversation monitoring; lighter compliance depth	200+ integrations (MS Teams, Slack, Bullhorn, Workday)	High-volume frontline and hourly hiring
Workday AI (HiredScore)	Bundled with Workday HRIS (custom pricing)	Natural fit for existing stacks, but the AI scoring layer requires bias audit; class action ongoing	Native Workday ecosystem	Organizations already on Workday HRIS
Phenom	Custom enterprise pricing	Published bias reports	Workday, SAP, major ATS integrations	End-to-end talent experience (career site + screening + CRM)
OVI (Milo + Sora)	Launch $29/mo; Starter $99/mo	Human-in-the-loop only; no biometric analysis; aligns with NYC LL 144 posture by design	Native AI chat ATS — no middleware required	Growing teams wanting AI-native hiring without enterprise lock-in

Three Architectural Categories — and Why They Matter for Compliance

Not every platform carries the same compliance burden. Understanding the architecture helps you assess your audit exposure:

End-to-end AI platforms (Eightfold, Phenom): These handle sourcing, screening, and internal mobility in a single system. Their breadth means more AI touchpoints subject to audit, but they typically invest in published bias reports and formal compliance programs.
Funnel-stage specialists (HireVue for assessment, Paradox for scheduling): These tools focus on one hiring stage. Compliance risk concentrates on that stage — HireVue publishes EEOC-aligned audit trails; Paradox offers lighter compliance depth suited to high-volume, lower-stakes hiring.
Native AI chat ATS (OVI): Built AI-first rather than bolted onto a legacy ATS, OVI avoids inheriting the add-on compliance risk profile that screening tools layered on older systems carry. Milo, OVI's screening agent, runs a configurable rubric with customizable weights, context clues, and red flags to produce a ranked shortlist — all via audio chat, not video. Sora handles sourcing with systematic outreach and automated follow-up. Because the entire stack lives in one AI chat interface with no middleware, there is no integration debt and no bolt-on bias-audit tax.

OVI's compliance posture aligns with current regulatory expectations by design: human-in-the-loop architecture means AI provides decision-support only, with final hiring decisions remaining with the recruiter. There is no biometric or voice-characteristic analysis — screening is based on transcript content only. This architecture meaningfully reduces AEDT exposure under NYC LL 144, since OVI does not fit the "automated decision" definition. Full details are available at ovi-me.com.

Enterprise Decision Criteria: A Five-Point Framework

Before selecting a platform, evaluate each vendor against these criteria:

Compliance posture: Does the vendor publish an annual bias audit? What is their AEDT classification?
ATS integration depth: Native integration or middleware required? Middleware adds cost and failure points.
Total cost of ownership: Factor in the $15,000–$30,000 per year for independent bias audits on top of license fees. Native AI platforms like OVI that reduce AEDT exposure can avoid this line item entirely.
Implementation timeline: Enterprise platforms (Eightfold, HireVue) typically require 3–6 weeks. OVI and Paradox deploy faster due to lighter integration requirements.
Pricing model: Per-seat pricing (Eightfold, Phenom) scales with headcount. Per-use models (HireVue per interview, OVI per credit) let you pay for what you actually screen — OVI's credit system (1 credit = 1 CV screen; 5 credits = 1 interview minute) makes costs predictable even at variable volumes.

What is a bias audit under NYC Local Law 144?

An independent, annual statistical evaluation of an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) that tests for disparate impact across race/ethnicity and sex categories. Results must be published on the employer's website. Fines for non-compliance start at $500 and compound at $1,500 per day.

Which platforms are best positioned for NYC LL 144?

HireVue has the strongest formal audit infrastructure among enterprise tools. OVI reduces exposure by design — its human-in-the-loop architecture and absence of automated decisions mean it may not meet the AEDT definition that triggers the audit requirement.

How does OVI compare to enterprise screening tools?

OVI is a native AI chat ATS with two agents: Milo (screening via configurable rubric) and Sora (sourcing). At $29/month (Launch) or $99/month (Starter), it costs a fraction of enterprise platforms while avoiding the integration debt and bolt-on bias-audit costs those platforms carry. It is purpose-built for growing teams that want AI-native hiring without six-figure licensing.

Do I still need a bias audit if I use AI only for resume screening?

Under NYC LL 144, any tool that 'substantially assists or replaces' discretionary decision-making in hiring is classified as an AEDT and requires an audit. Resume-screening tools that score, rank, or filter candidates likely meet this threshold. Check your specific tool's classification against state mandates.

What is the real cost of adding AI screening to an existing ATS?

Beyond the license fee, budget $15,000–$30,000 per year for an independent bias audit, plus middleware and integration costs if the screening tool is not native to your ATS. Platforms built AI-first (like OVI) can eliminate both the middleware layer and the audit overhead.