§ The result
Rippling leads Teamtailor on all 7 criteria.
Rippling scores 56 and Teamtailor 47 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. Rippling leads every one of the 7 criteria, Teamtailor none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Rippling 64 to Teamtailor 62. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Rippling 73, Teamtailor 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Rippling holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
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
Rippling 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 | Rippling | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2016 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Rippling 73 · Teamtailor 50
4.6 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Rippling 42 · Teamtailor 30
2.2 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Rippling 64 · Teamtailor 58
0.9 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Rippling 60 · Teamtailor 54
0.7 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Rippling 47 · Teamtailor 42
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Rippling 45 · Teamtailor 42
0.4 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Rippling 64 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Rippling minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Rippling | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 73 | 50 | +23 | +4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 58 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 42 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 47 (F) | +9 | +9.6 |
§ 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 | Rippling | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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