§ The result
Plum takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
Plum scores 54 and Teamtailor 47 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria than Plum — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Plum leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Plum. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Plum 83, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 85% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
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
Plum is filed under Assessment AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Plum is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Plum | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | CA | SE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Plum 83 · Teamtailor 30
9.5 weighted points to Plum
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Plum 28 · Teamtailor 42
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Plum 58 · Teamtailor 50
1.6 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Plum 36 · Teamtailor 42
0.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Plum 54 · Teamtailor 58
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Plum 52 · Teamtailor 54
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Plum 63 · Teamtailor 62
0.1 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.9 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 +7.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Plum minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Plum | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 30 | +53 | +9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 42 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 47 (F) | +7 | +7.6 |
§ 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 | Plum | 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% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Plum 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