§ The result
Teamtailor leads Pulsifi by 14 points.
Teamtailor, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 14 points above Pulsifi, filed under Assessment: 47 against 33 under rubric v1.0. Pulsifi takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Teamtailor, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. The advantage Teamtailor holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Pulsifi 30, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 29% of the weighted points Teamtailor gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
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
Pulsifi 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, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Pulsifi is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Pulsifi | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pulsifi 30 · Teamtailor 50
4.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pulsifi 40 · Teamtailor 58
2.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pulsifi 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pulsifi 20 · Teamtailor 30
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pulsifi 28 · Teamtailor 42
1.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pulsifi 46 · Teamtailor 62
1.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pulsifi 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to Pulsifi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -13.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pulsifi minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Pulsifi | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 58 | -18 | -2.7 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 46 | 62 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 47 (F) | -14 | -13.9 |
§ 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 | Pulsifi | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pulsifi last reviewed
- September 25, 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