§ The result
HiringBranch takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
HiringBranch scores 52 and Teamtailor 47 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria than HiringBranch — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which HiringBranch leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to HiringBranch. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiringBranch 60, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 71% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
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
HiringBranch 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 HiringBranch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiringBranch | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | CA | SE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiringBranch 60 · Teamtailor 30
5.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiringBranch 60 · Teamtailor 50
2.0 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiringBranch 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiringBranch 55 · Teamtailor 58
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiringBranch 52 · Teamtailor 54
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiringBranch 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiringBranch 64 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to HiringBranch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiringBranch minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | HiringBranch | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 60 | 30 | +30 | +5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 47 (F) | +5 | +5.6 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 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 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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