§ The result
1 point separates Teamtailor and HiBob.
Teamtailor holds a 1-point edge over HiBob under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Teamtailor: Teamtailor is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and HiBob on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiBob 20, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
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
HiBob and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | HiBob | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | SE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiBob 20 · Teamtailor 30
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiBob 63 · Teamtailor 54
1.1 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiBob 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiBob 55 · Teamtailor 50
1.0 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiBob 47 · Teamtailor 42
0.6 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiBob 57 · Teamtailor 58
0.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiBob 61 · Teamtailor 62
0.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiBob minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | HiBob | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 54 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 42 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 61 | 62 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 47 (F) | -1 | -0.4 |
§ 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 | HiBob | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 29 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 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 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiBob 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