§ The result
Teamtailor leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor sits 10 points above AmazingHiring under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 37 — with Teamtailor filed under ATS-integrated and AmazingHiring under Sourcing. Teamtailor is ahead of AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Human Oversight Design at AmazingHiring 48 to Teamtailor 54. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (AmazingHiring 35, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
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
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Teamtailor is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2011 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Teamtailor 50
3.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 48% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Teamtailor 42
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Teamtailor 30
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Teamtailor 58
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Teamtailor 62
0.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Teamtailor 54
0.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 47 (F) | -10 | -10.0 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 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