§ The result
X0PA AI takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
X0PA AI (Assessment) edges Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria than X0PA AI — 4 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which X0PA AI leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to X0PA AI. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Teamtailor 30, X0PA AI 44 — and at an 18% weight it carries 88% of the weighted advantage X0PA AI holds across the 2 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
X0PA AI
X0PA AI is a Singapore-based B2B AI recruitment platform (applicant tracking system) that sources, screens, scores, and ranks candidates using proprietary predictive-scoring models (BRIQ Score and Suitability Score) plus the X0PA ROOM video-interview/assessment product, marketed around bias-reduced, "responsible and explainable" AI hiring.
§ The record
Teamtailor is filed under ATS-integrated AI, X0PA AI under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only X0PA AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Teamtailor | X0PA AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | SE | SG |
| Founded | 2013 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · X0PA AI 44
2.5 weighted points to X0PA AI
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · X0PA AI 38
0.6 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · X0PA AI 57
0.4 weighted points to X0PA AI
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · X0PA AI 56
0.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · X0PA AI 40
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · X0PA AI 60
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus X0PA AI.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | X0PA AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 44 | -14 | -2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -1.6 |
§ 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 | X0PA AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 12 | 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; X0PA AI has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for X0PA AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for X0PA AI, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- X0PA AI 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