§ The result
Teamtailor leads Recruiterflow by 11 points.
Teamtailor sits 11 points above Recruiterflow under rubric v1.0, 47 against 36, with both filed under ATS-integrated. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Teamtailor: Teamtailor is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Recruiterflow on Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Recruiterflow 33, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
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
Recruiterflow and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Teamtailor is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Recruiterflow | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Recruiterflow 33 · Teamtailor 50
3.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Recruiterflow 18 · Teamtailor 30
2.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Recruiterflow 44 · Teamtailor 58
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Recruiterflow 30 · Teamtailor 42
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Recruiterflow 33 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Recruiterflow 58 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Recruiterflow
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Recruiterflow 56 · Teamtailor 62
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Recruiterflow minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Recruiterflow | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 50 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 30 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 42 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 47 (F) | -11 | -10.5 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Recruiterflow 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