§ The result
Teamtailor leads DevSkiller by 8 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and DevSkiller 39 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Teamtailor leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while DevSkiller leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: FRIA Support (DevSkiller 25, Teamtailor 42) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (DevSkiller 35, Teamtailor 50), the second being 36% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
DevSkiller
DevSkiller (now branded SkillPanel) provides technical skills assessment and coding tests that automatically score developer candidates on real-world work-sample tasks using hidden verification unit tests and static code analysis.
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
DevSkiller 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 DevSkiller is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | DevSkiller | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | PL | SE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
DevSkiller 35 · Teamtailor 50
3.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
DevSkiller 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
DevSkiller 22 · Teamtailor 30
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
DevSkiller 52 · Teamtailor 58
0.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
DevSkiller 58 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
DevSkiller 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
DevSkiller 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to DevSkiller
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is DevSkiller minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | DevSkiller | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 47 (F) | -8 | -8.3 |
§ 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 | DevSkiller | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 4 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
DevSkiller has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 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 DevSkiller sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 15 for DevSkiller, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- DevSkiller last reviewed
- July 17, 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