§ The result
Teamtailor leads Draup by 5 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and Draup 42 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Teamtailor leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Draup leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 25, Teamtailor 42 — and at a 15% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Draup | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 38% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Teamtailor 42
1.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Teamtailor 58
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Teamtailor 30
0.5 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Draup
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Teamtailor 50
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Teamtailor 62
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 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 -4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 47 (F) | -5 | -4.6 |
§ 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 | Draup | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup 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