§ The result
Harver takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
Harver scores 56 and Teamtailor 47 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria than Harver — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Harver leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Harver. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harver 80, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
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
Harver is filed under Assessment AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Harver is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Harver | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | SE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harver 80 · Teamtailor 30
9.0 weighted points to Harver
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harver 65 · Teamtailor 50
3.0 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harver 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harver 50 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harver 55 · Teamtailor 58
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harver 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harver 60 · Teamtailor 62
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 14.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Harver | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 50 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 30 | +50 | +9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 47 (F) | +9 | +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 | Harver | 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 the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 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 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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