§ The result
Glider AI takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Glider AI, filed under Assessment, finishes on 52 and Teamtailor, filed under ATS-integrated, on 47, 5 points apart. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Glider AI, yet Glider AI takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Glider AI 68, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 93% of the weighted advantage Glider AI holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
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
Glider AI 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 Glider AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Glider AI | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2020 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Glider AI 68 · Teamtailor 30
6.8 weighted points to Glider AI
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Glider AI 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Glider AI 54 · Teamtailor 58
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Glider AI 52 · Teamtailor 50
0.4 weighted points to Glider AI
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Glider AI 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Glider AI 60 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Glider AI 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to Glider AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.4 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 +5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 30 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 47 (F) | +5 | +5.3 |
§ 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 | Glider AI | 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 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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; some documentation or audit rows for Glider AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI 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