§ The result
Teamtailor leads Coderbyte by 5 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and Coderbyte 42 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Coderbyte takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Teamtailor, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. The advantage Teamtailor holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Coderbyte 20, Teamtailor 30, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 35% of the weighted points Teamtailor gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Coderbyte
Coderbyte is a technical hiring platform offering coding assessments with automated and AI grading of challenges and take-home projects, live coding interviews, and AI screening that grades resumes against job-description criteria and runs agentic phone screens.
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
Coderbyte 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 Coderbyte is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Coderbyte | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · Teamtailor 30
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · Teamtailor 42
1.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Coderbyte 44 · Teamtailor 50
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · Teamtailor 54
0.7 weighted points to Coderbyte
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · Teamtailor 58
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 47 (F) | -5 | -4.5 |
§ 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 | Coderbyte | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | Audit reportSources 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 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 Coderbyte sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte 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