§ The result
4 points separate Teamtailor and HighMatch.
Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) edges HighMatch (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 43. HighMatch takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Teamtailor, whose share includes FRIA Support, and 1 is level. One criterion, FRIA Support, is both the widest raw gap (HighMatch 30, Teamtailor 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 42% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
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
HighMatch 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 HighMatch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HighMatch | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2005 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 36% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HighMatch 30 · Teamtailor 42
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HighMatch 45 · Teamtailor 50
1.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HighMatch 52 · Teamtailor 58
0.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HighMatch 60 · Teamtailor 54
0.7 weighted points to HighMatch
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HighMatch 58 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HighMatch 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HighMatch minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | HighMatch | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 47 (F) | -4 | -3.5 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 3 | 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 domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 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; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HighMatch 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