§ The result
Pinpoint leads Teamtailor by 10 points.
Pinpoint sits 10 points above Teamtailor under rubric v1.0, 57 against 47, with both filed under ATS-integrated. Pinpoint leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Teamtailor leads 1, including FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Pinpoint 72, Teamtailor 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
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
Pinpoint 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.
| Record | Pinpoint | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | JE | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pinpoint 72 · Teamtailor 50
4.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pinpoint 42 · Teamtailor 30
2.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pinpoint 68 · Teamtailor 58
1.5 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pinpoint 64 · Teamtailor 54
1.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pinpoint 52 · Teamtailor 42
1.2 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pinpoint 38 · Teamtailor 42
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pinpoint 66 · Teamtailor 62
0.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pinpoint minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Pinpoint | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 72 | 50 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 54 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 47 (F) | +10 | +10.2 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 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 Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pinpoint 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