§ The result
Teamtailor leads micro1 on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Teamtailor sits 11 points above micro1 under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 36 — with Teamtailor filed under ATS-integrated and micro1 under Screening. Teamtailor leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so micro1 is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Teamtailor leads is Human Oversight Design, micro1 48 to Teamtailor 54. The advantage Teamtailor holds is spread out: FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (micro1 22, Teamtailor 42, 15% weight), yet it supplies only 28% of the weighted points Teamtailor gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
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
micro1 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 micro1 is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | micro1 | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 28% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
micro1 22 · Teamtailor 42
3.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
micro1 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
micro1 45 · Teamtailor 58
1.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
micro1 20 · Teamtailor 30
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
micro1 45 · Teamtailor 62
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
micro1 48 · Teamtailor 54
0.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is micro1 minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | micro1 | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 42 | -20 | -3.0 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 47 (F) | -11 | -10.9 |
§ 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 | micro1 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 25 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 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 micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- micro1 last reviewed
- September 25, 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