§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sits 10 points above Teamtailor under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 47 — with Juicebox (PeopleGPT) filed under Sourcing and Teamtailor under ATS-integrated. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria than Juicebox (PeopleGPT) — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Juicebox (PeopleGPT). Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 83% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 · Teamtailor 30
9.7 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55 · Teamtailor 42
1.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52 · Teamtailor 50
0.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56 · Teamtailor 58
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.7 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 Juicebox (PeopleGPT) minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 30 | +54 | +9.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 42 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | 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 a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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