§ The result
Teamtailor leads Alooba by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Teamtailor, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 47 and Alooba, filed under Assessment, on 38, 9 points apart. Alooba takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Teamtailor, whose share includes FRIA Support. The advantage Teamtailor holds is spread out: FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 28, Teamtailor 42, 15% weight), yet it supplies only 25% of the weighted points Teamtailor gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Vendor profile
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Alooba is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | SE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 24% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Teamtailor 42
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Teamtailor 50
2.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Teamtailor 58
1.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Teamtailor 30
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Teamtailor 42
0.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 42 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 47 (F) | -9 | -8.4 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 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