§ The result
Teamtailor leads Radancy by 6 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and Radancy 41 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Teamtailor leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Radancy leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. FRIA Support is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Radancy 28, Teamtailor 42, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
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
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Teamtailor 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. Only Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Radancy | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2006 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 31% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Teamtailor 42
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Teamtailor 30
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Teamtailor 50
1.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Teamtailor 42
0.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Teamtailor 54
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Radancy 60 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 50 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 42 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 47 (F) | -6 | -6.0 |
§ 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 | Radancy | 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 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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