§ The result
Teamtailor leads Feenyx by 7 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and Feenyx 40 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Feenyx takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Teamtailor, whose share includes FRIA Support. Even FRIA Support, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Feenyx 25, Teamtailor 42, 15% weight), is only 35% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
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
Feenyx is filed under Assessment AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2016 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 33% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Teamtailor 50
1.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Teamtailor 58
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Teamtailor 30
0.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Teamtailor 62
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Feenyx 58 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Feenyx 38 · Teamtailor 42
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 47 (F) | -7 | -6.8 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources 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% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 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 Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx 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