§ The result
Teamtailor leads Oleeo by 7 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and Oleeo 40 under rubric v1.0 — a 7-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. Teamtailor leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Oleeo leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. FRIA Support is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Oleeo 25, Teamtailor 42, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
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
Oleeo and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Oleeo | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | SE |
| Founded | 1995 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 24% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Oleeo 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Oleeo 40 · Teamtailor 50
2.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Oleeo 45 · Teamtailor 58
1.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Oleeo 40 · Teamtailor 30
1.8 weighted points to Oleeo
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Oleeo 30 · Teamtailor 42
1.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Oleeo 55 · Teamtailor 62
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Oleeo 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to Oleeo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Oleeo minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Oleeo | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 30 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 47 (F) | -7 | -6.6 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 2 | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 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 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Oleeo 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