§ The result
3 points separate Paycom and Teamtailor.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Paycom edges Teamtailor by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 50 to 47. Paycom leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Teamtailor leads 3, including FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Paycom 68, Teamtailor 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 63% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
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
Paycom 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 | Paycom | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 1998 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Paycom 68 · Teamtailor 50
3.6 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Paycom 30 · Teamtailor 42
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Paycom 38 · Teamtailor 30
1.4 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Paycom 62 · Teamtailor 58
0.6 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Paycom 38 · Teamtailor 42
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Paycom 60 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Paycom 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to Paycom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Paycom minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Paycom | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 50 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 50 (F) | 47 (F) | +3 | +3.3 |
§ 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 | Paycom | 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% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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 | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Paycom 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