§ The result
Dayforce leads Teamtailor by 10 points.
Dayforce sits 10 points above Teamtailor under rubric v1.0, 57 against 47, with both filed under ATS-integrated. Dayforce 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 — Dayforce 74, Teamtailor 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Dayforce holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Dayforce
Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and analytics.
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
Dayforce and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Dayforce | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 1992 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Dayforce 74 · Teamtailor 50
4.8 weighted points to Dayforce
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Dayforce 42 · Teamtailor 30
2.2 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Dayforce 68 · Teamtailor 54
1.7 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Dayforce 63 · Teamtailor 58
0.8 weighted points to Dayforce
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Dayforce 70 · Teamtailor 62
0.6 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Dayforce 47 · Teamtailor 42
0.6 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Dayforce 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Dayforce minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Dayforce | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 74 | 50 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 68 | 54 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 42 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 62 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 47 (F) | +10 | +10.3 |
§ 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 | Dayforce | 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% | 4 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Dayforce has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Dayforce, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Dayforce 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