§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Teamtailor by 9 points.
Sapia.ai scores 56 and Teamtailor 47 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Sapia.ai leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Teamtailor leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Sapia.ai 52, Teamtailor 30) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Sapia.ai 70, Teamtailor 50), the second being 38% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
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
Sapia.ai 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, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Sapia.ai | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | SE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · Teamtailor 50
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · Teamtailor 30
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sapia.ai 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · Teamtailor 54
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · Teamtailor 42
1.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · Teamtailor 58
0.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.4 — 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 +9 beside that +9.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 50 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 30 | +22 | +4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 47 (F) | +9 | +9.4 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | 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% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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