§ The result
Teamtailor leads Manatal by 6 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and Manatal 41 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. Teamtailor leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Manatal leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Manatal 33, Teamtailor 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
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
Manatal and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Manatal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Manatal | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | TH | SE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Manatal 33 · Teamtailor 50
3.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Manatal 22 · Teamtailor 30
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Manatal 33 · Teamtailor 42
1.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Manatal 52 · Teamtailor 58
0.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Manatal 60 · Teamtailor 54
0.7 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Manatal 43 · Teamtailor 42
0.1 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 50 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 42 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 47 (F) | -6 | -6.3 |
§ 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 | Manatal | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal 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