§ The result
3 points separate Test Partnership and Teamtailor.
Test Partnership (Assessment) edges Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 50 to 47. Teamtailor and Test Partnership each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Test Partnership holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Teamtailor 30, Test Partnership 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 63% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds across the 3 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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
§ The record
Teamtailor is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Test Partnership under Assessment 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 Test Partnership is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Teamtailor | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · Test Partnership 48
3.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · Test Partnership 57
1.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · Test Partnership 33
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · Test Partnership 36
0.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · Test Partnership 58
0.5 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · Test Partnership 57
0.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus Test Partnership.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 50 (F) | -3 | -3.0 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 26 | 6 | 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; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership 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