§ The result
iMocha leads Teamtailor by 9 points.
iMocha scores 56 and Teamtailor 47 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. iMocha leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Teamtailor leads 1, including FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (iMocha 68, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage iMocha holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
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
iMocha 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 iMocha is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | iMocha | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | SE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
iMocha 68 · Teamtailor 50
3.6 weighted points to iMocha
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
iMocha 44 · Teamtailor 30
2.5 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
iMocha 66 · Teamtailor 58
1.2 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
iMocha 64 · Teamtailor 54
1.2 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
iMocha 48 · Teamtailor 42
0.7 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
iMocha 38 · Teamtailor 42
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
iMocha 66 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is iMocha minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | iMocha | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 50 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 54 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 47 (F) | +9 | +9.0 |
§ 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 | iMocha | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources 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% | 21 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 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 iMocha sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- iMocha 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