§ The result
Teamtailor leads Workstream by 8 points.
Teamtailor scores 47 and Workstream 39 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Teamtailor: Teamtailor is ahead on FRIA Support and Workstream on Human Oversight Design. The advantage Teamtailor holds is spread out: FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Teamtailor 42, Workstream 27, 15% weight), yet it supplies only 25% of the weighted points Teamtailor gains across the 6 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Teamtailor is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Workstream 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 Workstream is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Teamtailor | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 23% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · Workstream 27
2.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · Workstream 40
2.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · Workstream 20
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · Workstream 47
1.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · Workstream 61
0.8 weighted points to Workstream
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · Workstream 35
0.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · Workstream 56
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 27 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 47 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 61 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 39 (F) | +8 | +8.2 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 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 domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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