Recruiting
Teamtailor
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Teamtailor AB · www.teamtailor.com
Compare with Recruitee → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Teamtailor, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
Applicant management & hiring workflow
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The daily work of hiring: pipeline stages per job, collaboration with hiring managers, structured evaluation, interview scheduling and candidate communication — judged on whether a decision is documented rather than merely made.
0 — An inbox of applications with a status field; no stages per job, no shared evaluation and no record of who decided what.
3 — A fixed pipeline with drag-and-drop stages and email templates, but hiring managers see everything or nothing, and evaluation is free-text comments.
5 — Configurable pipelines per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, structured scorecards, interview scheduling with calendar integration, and templated candidate emails in German.
8 — Approval workflows for requisitions and offers, role-based access per team and location, structured interview kits, bulk actions with automated but reviewable candidate communication, and a history on each candidate of every stage change and who made it.
10 — The pipeline is an auditable record of a fair process: every decision attributed and reasoned, evaluation criteria fixed before applications arrive, reporting on time-to-hire and drop-off per stage, and the full history exportable per candidate for an AGG dispute.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Scorecards with fixed criteria for skills and personality and configurable interview kits are exactly what makes a decision defensible, and email and SMS plus an audit log give me some traceability. But the audit log is opt-in rather than standard, and we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, approval workflows for offers, or a per-candidate history of who moved whom. 1 4
The Employer Branding Manager
Scorecards with fixed criteria and interview kits give structured evaluation rather than free-text comments, candidate messaging runs over email and SMS, and an audit log of platform activity can be activated. We found no public information on configurable pipeline stages per job, on hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, or on interview scheduling with calendar integration. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
Structured scorecards and interview kits are shown on the homepage, with email and SMS messaging for candidates and an activity log that claims to trace every action on the platform. We found no public information on configurable stages per job, hiring-manager access scoped to their own vacancies, calendar-integrated scheduling, or approval workflows for offers, so a decision's attribution rests only on an audit log the customer chooses to activate. 1 4
The Works Council Advocate
Structured scorecards with fixed criteria and interview kits are documented, and an optional audit log traces user activity in detail — a start toward attributing decisions. But we found no public information on configurable pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, approval steps for requisitions and offers, or a per-candidate history of who changed what and when. 1 4
The HR IT Integrator
Scorecards with clear criteria and configurable interview kits give structured evaluation, and the optional audit log records user activity in detail — but we found no public information on pipelines configurable per job, approval workflows for requisitions and offers, or interview scheduling with calendar integration. The scheduler and the approvals are the pieces I have to wire in before a tool can run a real hiring process, and candidate event logs are only kept for 28 days. 1 4
The Skeptic
Structured scorecards with fixed criteria and interview kits are evidenced, plus an optionally activatable audit log that tracks user activity in detail — the closest thing to a decision record on offer. We found no public information on pipelines configurable per job, hiring managers limited to their own vacancies, interview scheduling with calendar integration, or approval steps for offers, so evaluation structure is evidenced but the documented-decision layer is not. 1 4
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting a vacancy in front of the right people and letting them apply: job-board distribution for the German market, the career page, and an application process that does not lose candidates on a phone.
0 — No career page and no job-board distribution; vacancies are posted by hand elsewhere.
3 — A basic hosted job list and free aggregator feeds, with no named German boards, and an application form that requires an account or a desktop.
5 — A branded career page, multiposting to named boards including the Bundesagentur für Arbeit and at least one major German paid board, Google for Jobs markup, and mobile application without an account.
8 — Multiposting with booking and budget tracking per board from inside the system, source attribution per applicant, career page in several languages with an embeddable widget, accessibility stated, and an application form configurable per job.
10 — Distribution is measured, not only broadcast: cost and applicants per channel reported, the career page meets a stated accessibility standard, one-click or CV-parse application on mobile, and candidates can see their own status and withdraw themselves.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The block-based career-site editor with multilingual pages is a genuine strength and matches their branding pitch. But for reaching German candidates we found no public information on multiposting, on any named German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, on Google for Jobs markup, or on mobile application without an account — distribution beyond my own career page is invisible to me. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The block-based career-page editor with multilingual pages and team stories is the strongest piece for my brand budget, and the statistics dashboard reports job-ad performance. We found no public information on multiposting to named German boards, Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, or whether a candidate can apply on a phone without an account. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The career-page side is well evidenced: a block-based editor, multilingual career pages and employer-branding content such as team stories, plus job-ad performance in the statistics dashboard. We found no public information on job-board distribution for the German market, on any named boards including the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, on Google for Jobs markup, or on a mobile application path without an account. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
The block-based career-site editor, multilingual career pages and job-ad performance figures in the statistics dashboard show a real career presence beyond a plain job list, with unlimited job postings. But we found no public information on multiposting to job boards, no named German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, and nothing on Google for Jobs markup or a mobile application without an account. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
The block-editor career page is real, multilingual and brandable, and the statistics dashboard reports job-ad performance — but we found no public information on multiposting to any named board, including the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a German paid board, nor on Google for Jobs markup or how the application form behaves on a phone. Distribution is half this criterion and the captured pages give me nothing to buy against. 1
The Skeptic
A block-based, multilingual career page editor is real, and the statistics dashboard includes job-ad performance, but we found no public information on multiposting, on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or any other named German job board, or on Google for Jobs markup. What a buyer can see is a career site; the distribution side is unshown, and nothing in the captures describes the application flow on a phone. 1 4
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to the data of people who were not hired: automatic deletion on a configurable deadline, talent-pool consent that expires, data-subject requests, and access logging — the criterion the employer is actually liable for.
0 — Nothing stated about retention or deletion; applicant data stays until someone removes it by hand.
3 — Manual deletion and an anonymise button exist, but no automatic deadline, and talent-pool storage has no stated consent step.
5 — Automatic deletion or anonymisation after a configurable period after rejection, talent-pool storage only with recorded consent, and a documented way to answer an access or erasure request.
8 — Retention rules per country or entity, consent with expiry and automated re-consent requests, candidate self-service for their own data, a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, and permissions a works council can review.
10 — Governance that can be evidenced: deletion runs are logged and reportable, special-category data can be excluded or restricted by field, every export is recorded, and the vendor publishes how deletion propagates to backups and to the job boards and tools it syncs with.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Retention periods are actually written down — prospects two years after last contact, marketing contacts three years after contract end, and in-application deletions persisting only ten days in backups — and candidates get a documented route to access, erasure and portability. The talent pool grows through candidates connecting themselves, which reads as recorded interest. We found no public information on automatic deletion after rejection on a configurable deadline, consent expiry, or candidate self-service for their own file. 1 3 4
The Employer Branding Manager
The terms publish how deletion propagates to backups (ten days) and how data survives contract end, data-subject rights are documented with a contact address, and an audit log is available as an option. We found no public information on automatic deletion of rejected applicants after a configurable period or on talent-pool consent with an expiry; the pool fills through candidates choosing to connect. 1 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy documents retention periods for prospects and marketing contacts and the full catalogue of data-subject rights with a contact route, and the terms state that deleted data survives only in backups held ten days — a rare public statement of how deletion reaches backups. However, we found no public information on automatic deletion on a configurable deadline after rejection, on talent-pool consent with an expiry date, or on logged deletion runs; the audit log over user activity is an option the customer chooses to activate rather than a standing record over every applicant file. 1 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
Data-subject rights including portability and erasure with a documented request path, published backup retention of ten days after deletion, and a talent pool built on candidates actively connecting are more than many vendors show. We found no public information on automatic deletion after a configurable rejection deadline, consent expiry with re-consent requests, or candidate self-service, and the audit log is optional with its scope for viewing and exporting applicant files not specified. 1 3 4
The HR IT Integrator
Published retention periods, a stated ten-day backup purge after in-application deletion, a documented request channel with the full rights catalogue and an optional activity log give an employer something to show a works council; the published backup behaviour in particular is rare. But we found no public information on automatic deletion after rejection on a customer-configurable deadline, and the talent-pool connect feature is described without any stated consent step or expiry. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
Retention periods are published per data class (prospects two years after last contact, meeting recordings two years), deletion within sixty days of contract termination is committed, and backups roll off after ten days — an actual answer to how deletion propagates. We found no public information on automatic deletion on a configurable deadline after rejection, on recorded talent-pool consent with expiry, or on candidate self-service, and the audit log must be switched on rather than being there by default. 3 4 1
AI screening transparency & control
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether any automated ranking, matching, parsing or rejection is disclosed, explained and switchable — recruitment is a high-risk use under the EU AI Act, and an undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is a co-determination matter. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — AI matching or scoring is marketed with no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be turned off.
3 — AI features are described as a benefit, with a general assurance that humans decide, but no documentation of inputs, no per-feature switch and no model or provider named.
5 — Each AI feature is described with its purpose and inputs, can be disabled per account, never rejects a candidate without a human action, and the model provider or subprocessor is named.
8 — AI outputs are shown with their reasoning to the recruiter, candidates are informed when AI is used, protected attributes are stated to be excluded, EU processing is available for the AI features, and the vendor publishes its EU AI Act position.
10 — The vendor treats recruitment AI as the high-risk system the law says it is: documentation a works council can base an agreement on, bias testing described and repeated, logs of every AI-assisted decision retained for audit, and every AI feature off by default until the customer enables it.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The co-pilot is marketed as a benefit and does name its jobs — talent-pool search, applicant evaluation, question suggestions, CV summaries, job-ad generation — but we found no public information on what inputs the evaluation uses, whether each feature can be switched off, which model or provider runs it, or whether candidates are told. A match score I cannot explain to a candidate or a works council is precisely what I will not buy. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The co-pilot is marketed as evaluating applicants, searching the talent pool, summarising CVs and generating job ads — exactly the automated evaluation a works council will ask about. We found no public information on what inputs the evaluation uses, whether each feature can be switched off, which model provider runs it, or any assurance that a human decides. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The homepage markets an AI co-pilot that performs applicant evaluation, talent-pool search and CV summarisation, and we found no public information on the inputs it evaluates, where the models run, which provider processes the CVs, or whether each feature can be switched off. For a recruitment tool this is precisely the undisclosed scoring next to a candidate's name that a works council will ask about first. 1
The Works Council Advocate
An AI assistant is marketed whose duties include applicant evaluation, but we found no public information on what inputs it weighs, which provider or country processes the CVs, or whether a customer can switch the feature off — three questions my questionnaire asks before any agreement on such a tool. With no model provider named, no per-feature switch and no published EU AI Act position, this sits near the bottom of the scale. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The co-pilot is marketed as evaluating applicants, searching the talent pool and summarising CVs, and we found no public information on what inputs it evaluates, where the models run, whether each feature can be switched off per account, or any EU AI Act position. An AI applicant assessment with none of that documented is exactly what a works council will block, and recruitment is high-risk under the AI Act. 1
The Skeptic
The co-pilot is marketed as performing applicant evaluation, talent-pool search, CV summaries, question suggestions and job-ad generation, and we found no public information on what it evaluates, where it processes, whether each feature can be switched off, or who the model provider is. An applicant rating advertised with no stated inputs, no switch and no provider is the co-determination problem stated in one product blurb. 1
HR handover, integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The hire does not end in the ATS: handover to the HR system and payroll, identity and calendar integration, e-signature for contracts, and an API a team can build on.
0 — No integrations and no API; a hired candidate is retyped into the HR system.
3 — A CSV export and an email integration, with a partner marketplace that names no German HR or payroll systems.
5 — A documented API, calendar and video-interview integration, and a named handover to at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, DATEV-connected systems, SAP SuccessFactors).
8 — Maintained integrations with several named HR systems carrying the hire's data without retyping, SSO and SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, and an API with published limits.
10 — Integration is designed rather than bolted on: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, handover that carries documents and consent status into the HR record, deletion that propagates to connected systems, and the vendor maintaining the German integrations itself.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
An API, a marketplace with more than 450 integrations, SSO and e-signature on offers and onboarding documents are all stated, and e-signature alone saves me a weekly chase. But we found no public information on a named handover to HR or payroll systems common in DACH such as Personio or DATEV-connected systems, on webhooks, on SCIM, or on published API limits — so my path from hire to HR system is not visible. 1 4
The Employer Branding Manager
An API is named in the terms, a marketplace advertises more than 450 integrations, and SSO plus e-signature for offers are evidenced. We found no public information naming any HR or payroll system common in DACH that the hire hands over to, nor on webhooks or published API limits. 1 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
An API is named in the terms, a marketplace exists with more than 450 integrations, e-signature for offers and SSO are shown on the homepage, and the in-house Aboard HR service offers an HR destination. We found no public information naming German or DACH HR and payroll systems among the integrations, nor on webhooks, published API limits, or SCIM. 1 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
An API, a marketplace with more than 450 integrations, e-signature for offers and onboarding documents, and SSO are evidenced, which goes past a bare export. But we found no public information naming a German or DACH HR or payroll system the hire hands over to, and nothing on SCIM, webhooks or published API limits. 1 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
An API is named in the terms, a marketplace and a 450-plus-integrations claim exist, and SSO plus e-signature for offers and onboarding documents are real features; but we found no public information on API documentation, published limits or versioning, no named handover to a DACH HR system such as Personio, DATEV or SAP, and nothing at all on who maintains the integrations — for me the deciding question. The hire still risks arriving as a PDF someone retypes. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
API access, a third-party marketplace, e-signature for offers and onboarding documents, and SSO are evidenced, and the vendor sells its own HR service (Aboard HR) alongside the ATS. But the integration claims — '450+ integrations', 'integration into the existing HR tech stack' — name no system, and we found no public information on a handover to HR systems common in DACH, calendar or video integration, webhooks, or published API limits. 1 2 4 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where applicant data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are — including the job boards, CV parsers and AI providers the system passes CVs to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories holding the customer's own data, because every record belongs to a third party who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and CV parsing or AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or CV parsing and AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — parsing, AI, email delivery — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including parsing and AI providers, and a DPA that covers applicant data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and the AI and CV-parsing features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The contracting entity is Teamtailor AB in Stockholm under Swedish law, the data processing agreement is part of the agreement, and subprocessor categories plus transfer safeguards — adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses, technical measures — are published. But we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted, on named infrastructure providers, or on where CV summarising and the other AI features run; for a category where every record belongs to a third party, that silence costs. 3 4
The Employer Branding Manager
Teamtailor AB is a Swedish entity under Swedish law and the agreement includes a data processing agreement with the vendor as processor. We found no public information on where hosting runs, subprocessors appear only as categories with no named providers, and the privacy policy lists EU-US Data Privacy Framework and Standard Contractual Clauses as safeguards for recipients outside the EU/EEA without saying which parts of the chain they concern. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Teamtailor AB of Stockholm under Swedish law and the terms include a data processing agreement, but we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted or on the location of the AI and CV-processing features. The subprocessor disclosure names only categories — data centres, platform-as-a-service, ticketing, CRM — without a single provider, including the CV parser and the AI provider, while the policy contemplates transfers outside the EU under standard clauses. 1 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is Teamtailor AB in Stockholm under Swedish law, which is European. But the captured pages state no hosting location, name no individual subprocessors — only categories — and the safeguards cited for recipients outside the EU tell us transfers happen without saying which parts of an applicant's file leave Europe or where the AI evaluation runs. 3 4
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Teamtailor AB of Stockholm under Swedish law, but we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted; subprocessors are published only as categories with no named providers, and the privacy policy's standard contractual clauses and adequacy references point to transfers outside the EEA without naming where CV parsing or the AI assistant runs. Applicant data belongs to third parties who never chose this vendor, so an unnamed chain is not good enough. 3 4
The Skeptic
The privacy notice and terms name the Swedish company with its register number under Swedish law and a DPA included, while the independently sourced sovereignty attributes record jurisdiction, ownership and hosting as unconfirmed; subprocessors appear only as categories (data centres, PaaS, ticketing, CRM), with standard clauses covering transfers outside the EU. We found no public information on where hosting runs or where the AI co-pilot processes the CVs it summarises. A Swedish entity with unnamed data centres, unnamed processors and a vendor controller role over platform logs is a partial answer at best. 3 4 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing model (per employee, per open job, per recruiter seat), job-board posting costs, add-ons for AI, career page or integrations, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis (employees, jobs, seats) or which features sit in which tier is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis and main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (paid job-board postings, AI features, integrations, extra seats) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, job-board posting costs or the booking model stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given company size, number of open roles and recruiter seats, with every add-on, posting package and overage published.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Every fee sits in an Order Form; the captured pricing page tells me jobs and users are unlimited and support is included, but we found no public information on any tier price, so I cannot compute an annual cost before a sales call. What is public: annual billing in advance, VAT excluded, twelve-month auto-renewal with one month's notice, and 60 days' notice of price increases. 2 4
The Employer Branding Manager
The captured pricing page states feature counts and unlimited job ads and users, but we found no public price on it — fees are detailed in the Order Form, invoiced annually in advance, excluding VAT, with twelve-month auto-renewal and price adjustments on sixty days' notice. The contractual mechanics are transparent, but an annual invoice is not computable from public pages and nothing is said about job-board posting costs. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The commercial mechanics are public — an annual basis invoiced yearly in advance with twelve-month auto-renewal, one month's termination notice, prices excluding VAT, and unlimited jobs and users — but we found no public price figures on the captured pages, so a buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice. The sixty-day notice before price adjustments and the no-refund rule on early termination at least make cost changes foreseeable. 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
Fees sit in the order form on an annual basis with automatic twelve-month renewal, no refund on early termination, prices excluding VAT, and a right to adjust prices with sixty days notice — terms without a single public price figure. The German pricing page names inclusions such as unlimited jobs and users and support for all users, but we found no public price for any tier, add-on or posting package. 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
We found no public price figures at all — fees are set in the Order Form, and the pricing page as captured shows only unlimited jobs and users plus feature counts — so an invoice cannot be computed in advance. The contract shape is at least public: annual billing in advance, twelve-month auto-renewal with one month's notice, VAT excluded, no refund on early termination and 60 days' notice of price adjustments. 2 4
The Skeptic
The billing frame is public — annual provision, invoiced yearly in advance, twelve-month auto-renewal with one month's notice, sixty days' warning on price adjustments, no refund on early termination, prices excluding VAT — and the pricing page states unlimited job ads and users. But every fee sits in the Order Form: we found no public price figure of any kind, so a buyer can learn the term and the VAT treatment but cannot derive a single line of the annual invoice. That is a sales conversation with paperwork. 4 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 22 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 13 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.teamtailor.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.teamtailor.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.teamtailor.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.teamtailor.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page — found from the homepage trust.teamtailor.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap support.teamtailor.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →