Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
AmazingHiring vs Teamtailor
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Teamtailor leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 10 points above AmazingHiring, filed under Sourcing: 47 against 37 under rubric v1.0. Teamtailor takes all 7 criteria from AmazingHiring without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Human Oversight Design, AmazingHiring 48 to Teamtailor 54. The advantage Teamtailor holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (AmazingHiring 35, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 30% of the weighted points Teamtailor gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- AmazingHiring0
- Teamtailor7
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation35 vs 50
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Teamtailor is in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight30% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring35Teamtailor503.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight48% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring30Teamtailor421.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight62% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring22Teamtailor301.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight74% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring50Teamtailor581.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight85% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring33Teamtailor421.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight93% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring52Teamtailor620.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring48Teamtailor540.7 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 37F | 47F | -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.