Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Teamtailor
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
Concerning
ATS-integrated
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Greenhouse leads Teamtailor on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Greenhouse finishes 20 points clear of Teamtailor inside the ATS-integrated cohort under rubric v1.0: 67 (D) against 47 (F). Greenhouse leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Teamtailor is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Greenhouse leads is Customer Documentation, Greenhouse 64 to Teamtailor 62. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Greenhouse 86, Teamtailor 30) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse6
- Teamtailor0
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency86 vs 30
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Sourcing and Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Greenhouse | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight50% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Teamtailor3010.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight78% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Teamtailor505.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight88% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Teamtailor421.9 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight95% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Teamtailor541.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight99% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Teamtailor580.9 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Teamtailor620.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +20.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +20 beside that +20.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Teamtailor, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 50 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 30 | +56 | +10.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 58 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 54 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 67D | 47F | +20 | +20.1 |
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 | Greenhouse | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 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.