§ The result
Hireology leads Teamtailor by 10 points.
Hireology sits 10 points above Teamtailor under rubric v1.0, 57 against 47, with both filed under ATS-integrated. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Hireology and Teamtailor, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Hireology holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Hireology 83, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 80% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
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
Hireology 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 | Hireology | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2010 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Teamtailor 30
9.5 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Teamtailor 42
2.0 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Teamtailor 58
0.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Teamtailor 54
0.4 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 30 | +53 | +9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 42 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 47 (F) | +10 | +9.7 |
§ 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 | Hireology | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology 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