§ The result
Teamtailor leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor finishes 17 points clear of Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 30 — across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Teamtailor leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Moonhub leads none. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Moonhub 38, Teamtailor 62) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Moonhub 30, Teamtailor 50), the second being 24% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
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
Moonhub 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 | Moonhub | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2022 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Teamtailor 50
4.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Teamtailor 58
2.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Teamtailor 42
2.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Teamtailor 30
2.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Teamtailor 62
1.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Teamtailor 54
0.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -16.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 30 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 58 | -18 | -2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 42 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 47 (F) | -17 | -16.5 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | 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% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 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 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub 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