§ The result
1 point separates Teamtailor and Brainner.
Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) edges Brainner (Screening) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Teamtailor: Teamtailor is ahead on FRIA Support and Brainner on Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, and Brainner holds it (Brainner 42, Teamtailor 30, 18% weight), worth 74% of the weighted advantage Brainner builds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
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
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Brainner | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2023 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Teamtailor 30
2.2 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Teamtailor 42
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Teamtailor 58
0.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Teamtailor 50
0.4 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Teamtailor 42
0.4 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 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 -0.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 47 (F) | -1 | -0.4 |
§ 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 | Brainner | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner 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