§ The result
Teamtailor leads impress.ai on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor scores 47 and impress.ai 38 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Teamtailor is ahead of impress.ai on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Human Oversight Design at impress.ai 52 to Teamtailor 54. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: FRIA Support (impress.ai 25, Teamtailor 42) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (impress.ai 35, Teamtailor 50), the second being 33% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
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
impress.ai is filed under Screening AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only impress.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | impress.ai | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
impress.ai 35 · Teamtailor 50
3.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
impress.ai 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
impress.ai 22 · Teamtailor 30
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
impress.ai 32 · Teamtailor 42
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
impress.ai 55 · Teamtailor 58
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
impress.ai 58 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
impress.ai 52 · Teamtailor 54
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 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 -9.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is impress.ai minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | impress.ai | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 47 (F) | -9 | -9.2 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- impress.ai 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