§ The result
Checkr leads Teamtailor by 7 points.
Checkr scores 54 and Teamtailor 47 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Screening and ATS-integrated cohorts. Checkr leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Teamtailor leads 1, including FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Checkr 70, Teamtailor 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
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
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Checkr | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Teamtailor 50
4.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Teamtailor 42
1.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Teamtailor 54
1.4 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Teamtailor 42
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Teamtailor 30
0.9 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Teamtailor 58
0.6 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Teamtailor 62
0.5 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +6.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 50 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 54 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 47 (F) | +7 | +6.9 |
§ 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 | Checkr | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr 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