§ The result
HiPeople leads Teamtailor by 14 points.
HiPeople sits 14 points above Teamtailor under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 47 (F) — with HiPeople filed under Assessment and Teamtailor under ATS-integrated. HiPeople leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Teamtailor leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 84, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
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
HiPeople 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 HiPeople is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | SE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Teamtailor 30
9.7 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Teamtailor 50
2.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Teamtailor 42
2.2 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Teamtailor 54
1.0 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +14.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 30 | +54 | +9.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 47 (F) | +14 | +14.5 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 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 HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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