Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Teamtailor
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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
2 points separate Teamtailor and hackajob.
Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) edges hackajob (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 45. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Teamtailor, with 1 level: Teamtailor is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and hackajob on Article 11 Technical Documentation. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, and hackajob holds it (hackajob 60, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), worth 94% of the weighted advantage hackajob builds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob2
- Teamtailor4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation60 vs 50
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | SE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight33% of the movement so far
hackajob60Teamtailor502.0 weighted points to hackajob
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight63% of the movement so far
hackajob20Teamtailor301.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight87% of the movement so far
hackajob32Teamtailor421.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight95% of the movement so far
hackajob38Teamtailor420.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight98% of the movement so far
hackajob60Teamtailor620.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob55Teamtailor540.1 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Teamtailor, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 47F | -2 | -1.8 |
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 | hackajob | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 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 the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 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 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob 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.