§ The result
4 points separate Teamtailor and Wonderlic.
Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) edges Wonderlic (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 43. Teamtailor leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Wonderlic takes Bias Audit Transparency at 18%, Teamtailor 30 to Wonderlic 48, 89% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Data Governance Disclosure, Teamtailor 58 to Wonderlic 38.
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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Teamtailor is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Wonderlic 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Teamtailor | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · Wonderlic 48
3.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · Wonderlic 38
3.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · Wonderlic 25
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · Wonderlic 33
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · Wonderlic 52
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 38 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 43 (F) | +4 | +3.8 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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