§ The result
Teamtailor leads UKG on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Teamtailor edges UKG by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 44. Teamtailor leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so UKG is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Teamtailor leads is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Teamtailor 50 to UKG 48. FRIA Support is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Teamtailor 42, UKG 35, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 6 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Teamtailor and UKG are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Teamtailor | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 35% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · UKG 35
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · UKG 38
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · UKG 48
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · UKG 52
0.2 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 3.0 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 UKG.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 44 (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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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