Comparison
Jobscan vs Teal, dimension by dimension
Both products are scored on the RoleSprint Decision-First Score, a rubric we publish and that weights deciding which roles are worth pursuing over producing applications faster. That weighting is a position, not a neutral measure, and it is the first thing to disagree with if you disagree with the result.
Which is better, Jobscan or Teal?
Teal takes it 63 to 61 out of 100 on the RoleSprint Decision-First Score. Jobscan leads on opportunity prioritization; Teal leads on evidence-based fit, candidate control, transparency, search-strategy clarity, privacy and claim discipline; they are level on workflow utility. The widest single gap is opportunity prioritization, 4 points to Jobscan, so that is the dimension to decide on if you care about only one. Taken on their own, Jobscan is strongest on workflow utility at 9 of 10, and Teal on candidate control at 15 of 15. They also work differently. Jobscan: Mostly manual, with a reviewed automation option. You scan a resume against a posting, act on the findings, and apply yourself. Jobscan also sells auto-apply as a separate credit-based add-on, discounted 20% on paid plans, and its homepage states that you review every application before it is sent (read 2026-08-27). Teal: You apply yourself. Teal saves roles from a browser extension, tracks their status, and generates tailored resumes and cover letters against a saved job description. The rubric is ours, it is published in full, and RoleSprint sells against both of these products.
- Total, on the published rubric
- Jobscan 61 of 100, Teal 63 of 100. RoleSprint scores 85 on the same rubric, which we wrote.
- Widest gap
- Opportunity prioritization, 4 points to Jobscan.
- Jobscan pricing
- Not recorded in this dataset.
- Teal pricing
- Published and readable without an account. Read on 2026-08-30 at tealhq.com/pricing: Teal+ at $13 every 7 days, $29 every 30 days, or $79 every 90 days, each shown with a per-day equivalent. A free tier is offered indefinitely, and the page states no credit card is required to start.
- How each one applies
- Jobscan: Mostly manual, with a reviewed automation option. You scan a resume against a posting, act on the findings, and apply yourself. Jobscan also sells auto-apply as a separate credit-based add-on, discounted 20% on paid plans, and its homepage states that you review every application before it is sent (read 2026-08-27). Teal: You apply yourself. Teal saves roles from a browser extension, tracks their status, and generates tailored resumes and cover letters against a saved job description.
- What this comparison is not
- Not a hands-on test. No paid account was created for either product, so nothing here rests on using them; it rests on their own published pages, read on the dates shown, and on a rubric you can read and disagree with.
Source and method
Jobscan and Teal live pages, plus the RoleSprint Decision-First Score rubric. Verified 2026-08-27. Product facts and pricing are read from each vendor's own pages on the dates recorded; where the two records were verified on different dates, the earlier date is shown so nothing looks fresher than it is. Scores and totals are RoleSprint's, computed from the rubric published at /compare/methodology, last updated 2026-08-27. RoleSprint publishes these pages and sells a competing product. The rubric they are scored on is ours, it is published in full, and RoleSprint is scored on it alongside everything else — including on the dimensions where it does not win. Read the rubric before trusting any total on this page, including ours.
Every dimension, both products, and us
Jobscan 61, Teal 63, RoleSprint 85, each out of 100.
| Dimension | Jobscan | Teal | RoleSprint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opportunity prioritization/ 25 | 12 | 8 | 22 |
| Evidence-based fit/ 20 | 10 | 11 | 17 |
| Candidate control/ 15 | 13 | 15 | 15 |
| Transparency/ 15 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| Search-strategy clarity/ 10 | 3 | 4 | 9 |
| Workflow utility/ 10 | 9 | 9 | 5 |
| Privacy and claim discipline/ 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Total/ 100 | 61 | 63 | 85 |
Why each score is what it is
The reasoning per dimension, for both products, so a disagreement can be about the argument rather than the number.
Opportunity prioritizationJobscan 12, Teal 8, RoleSprint 22, out of 25
Jobscan. The match rate tells you how well one resume lines up with one posting, which does inform where effort goes, and Jobscan now surfaces jobs matched to a resume. But the output resolves a document question, not an effort question: a high match rate does not tell you the role is worth the hour.
Teal. Teal saves and organises roles you have already found and lets you rate them yourself, which is real but manual: the product records your priority rather than informing it. Nothing in it evaluates whether a saved role is a good use of your time.
Evidence-based fitJobscan 10, Teal 11, RoleSprint 17, out of 20
Jobscan. Jobscan publishes the five priorities behind the match rate — hard skills, education level, job title, soft skills, other keywords — which is unusually open. By that same published description the method is weighted text comparison, so it establishes overlap between two documents rather than whether your history evidences a requirement.
Teal. Resume tailoring works against a saved job description and surfaces keyword alignment, which is a genuine comparison between your document and a posting. It stops at the document: there is no published assessment of whether your history evidences the requirements.
Candidate controlJobscan 13, Teal 15, RoleSprint 15, out of 15
Jobscan. Jobscan added auto-apply and gated it behind a mandatory review: its own page states "You review every one before it's sent." That is the strongest control model of any automation in this comparison. Marks withheld only because automation exists at all, so the ceiling belongs to products that submit nothing.
Teal. Full marks. Teal submits nothing, automates no outreach, and every action is one you take. On this dimension it is level with RoleSprint, and both are ahead of every auto-apply product scored here.
TransparencyJobscan 11, Teal 12, RoleSprint 13, out of 15
Jobscan. The strongest transparency showing of the four. Jobscan publishes how the match rate is computed, states what is excluded from it, and openly warns that an over-optimised resume is a real failure mode — a limitation that costs it sales. Points withheld because the Pricing link now 301s to an app page behind sign-in, so a prospective buyer can no longer read the price on the marketing site; the figure on this page comes from Jobscan's own comparison writing instead of a checkout we could reach.
Teal. Prices are public and stated three ways with per-day equivalents, the free tier is described feature by feature, and the page states no card is needed to start. Points withheld because how the AI credits are consumed is not published.
Search-strategy clarityJobscan 3, Teal 4, RoleSprint 9, out of 10
Jobscan. Job matching and an application tracker give a candidate the raw material to notice a pattern across roles, but nothing in the product assesses whether the set of roles being targeted is coherent. That judgement is left entirely to the user.
Teal. The tracker makes the shape of a search visible — how many roles, at what stage — which is more than most products offer. It does not interpret that shape or tell you the target set is incoherent.
Workflow utilityJobscan 9, Teal 9, RoleSprint 5, out of 10
Jobscan. Broad and getting broader: resume scanner, AI optimiser, ATS resume builder, bullet and summary generators, job matching, an application tracker, and reviewed auto-apply. Close to the full spread of job-search work.
Teal. Near full marks. Browser extension, tracker, document storage and per-role tailoring in one place is a genuinely strong workflow, and better than RoleSprint's on this dimension.
Privacy and claim disciplineJobscan 3, Teal 4, RoleSprint 4, out of 5
Jobscan. Genuinely good on output boundaries — it explains what the match rate is made of, states what is excluded from it, and cautions against over-optimising. Two points withheld because Jobscan's homepage also states it "improves job placement by helping job seekers land 3X more interviews and cutting job search time in half". Those are Jobscan's own figures and we are not disputing them. The deduction is about disclosure: we found no published methodology for either, so a reader cannot tell what was measured or over what period.
Teal. Marketing language is aspirational but restrained, and no unverifiable hiring-outcome statistic appears on the pricing page.
Who should pick which
Choose Jobscan
Your resume genuinely is hard for software to read, or you want a keyword workbench and a resume builder in one place, and you will use it often enough to justify the price. Jobscan has been doing this for years, the free tier is honestly useful at five scans a month, and if keyword alignment is the thing you actually need, it does that job properly. RoleSprint does not build resumes and does not produce a match rate.
The full Jobscan reviewChoose Teal
Someone running a high-volume search across many roles who is losing track of what they sent where, and who wants one place to store roles, tailor documents and see the pipeline. Teal's tracker is a real product doing a real job, its free tier is unusually generous for this category, and if disorganisation is genuinely your bottleneck it will help more than anything RoleSprint does.
The full Teal reviewNeither product is RoleSprint, and for some readers neither is the right answer. If both are optimising the production of applications and your applications are already going out in reasonable numbers without converting, the thing to change is which roles you are spending them on, and that is a different category of tool.
Who published this and what they sell
RoleSprint publishes these pages and sells a competing product. The rubric they are scored on is ours, it is published in full, and RoleSprint is scored on it alongside everything else — including on the dimensions where it does not win. Read the rubric before trusting any total on this page, including ours.
No paid account was created for either product. Facts were read from each vendor’s own live pages on the dates shown above, and anything only visible behind a sign-up is recorded as unverified rather than estimated.
What to do next
Both products change how many applications you send. Whether that is your bottleneck is a separate question, and it is answerable with numbers you already have.