§ The result
4 points separate Teamtailor and CodeSignal.
Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) edges CodeSignal (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 43. Teamtailor leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while CodeSignal leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — CodeSignal takes Bias Audit Transparency at 18%, CodeSignal 45 to Teamtailor 30, 96% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds — while the widest raw gap sits on FRIA Support, CodeSignal 25 to Teamtailor 42.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
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
CodeSignal 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 CodeSignal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Teamtailor 30
2.7 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Teamtailor 50
2.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Teamtailor 58
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Teamtailor 42
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 50 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 30 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 47 (F) | -4 | -3.8 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 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