§ The result
1 point separates Teamtailor and Arctic Shores.
Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) edges Arctic Shores (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46. Arctic Shores and Teamtailor each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Teamtailor holds (headed by Post-Market Monitoring) adds up to more weighted points. Post-Market Monitoring is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 30, Teamtailor 42 — and at a 12% weight it carries 55% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
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
Arctic Shores 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 Arctic Shores is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | SE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Teamtailor 42
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Teamtailor 30
0.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Teamtailor 54
0.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Teamtailor 58
0.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 47 (F) | -1 | -1.3 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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