§ The result
Teamtailor leads Qureos on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Teamtailor sits 14 points above Qureos under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 33 — with Teamtailor filed under ATS-integrated and Qureos under Screening. Teamtailor leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Qureos is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Teamtailor leads is Post-Market Monitoring, Qureos 35 to Teamtailor 42. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Qureos 28, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), is only 32% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
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
Qureos is filed under Screening AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Qureos | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AE | SE |
| Founded | 2021 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Teamtailor 50
4.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Teamtailor 30
3.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Teamtailor 58
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · Teamtailor 42
0.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · Teamtailor 62
0.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -13.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.9 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 Qureos minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 30 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 54 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| 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 | Qureos | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos 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