§ The result
Teamtailor leads Fetcher on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor sits 10 points above Fetcher under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 37 — with Teamtailor filed under ATS-integrated and Fetcher under Sourcing. Teamtailor leads every one of the 7 criteria, Fetcher none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Fetcher 28 to Teamtailor 30. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 27, Teamtailor 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
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
Fetcher 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 | Fetcher | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fetcher 27 · Teamtailor 50
4.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fetcher 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fetcher 35 · Teamtailor 42
0.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · Teamtailor 62
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · Teamtailor 58
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · Teamtailor 30
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · Teamtailor 54
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 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 -9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 50 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 47 (F) | -10 | -9.6 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher 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