§ The result
Teamtailor leads Tengai by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Teamtailor, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 47 and Tengai, filed under Screening, on 42, 5 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Teamtailor: Teamtailor is ahead on FRIA Support and Tengai on Bias Audit Transparency. The advantage Teamtailor holds is spread out: FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Teamtailor 42, Tengai 28, 15% weight), yet it supplies only 35% of the weighted points Teamtailor gains across the 5 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Teamtailor is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Tengai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Tengai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Teamtailor | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | SE |
| Founded | 2013 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 30% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · Tengai 28
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · Tengai 50
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · Tengai 33
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · Tengai 45
1.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · Tengai 55
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · Tengai 33
0.5 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · Tengai 58
0.5 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 42 (F) | +5 | +4.9 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 37 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai last reviewed
- September 25, 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