§ The result
Teamtailor leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor sits 11 points above Turing under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 36 — with Teamtailor filed under ATS-integrated and Turing under Assessment. Teamtailor is ahead of Turing on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at Teamtailor 30 to Turing 28. FRIA Support is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Teamtailor 42, Turing 25, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 24% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
§ The record
Teamtailor is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Teamtailor | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 24% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · Turing 25
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · Turing 44
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · Turing 27
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · Turing 42
1.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · Turing 48
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · Turing 45
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · Turing 28
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 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 +10.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 27 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 36 (F) | +11 | +10.6 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing 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