§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Ceipal by 11 points.
Arctic Shores sits 11 points above Ceipal under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 35 — with Arctic Shores filed under Assessment and Ceipal under ATS-integrated. Arctic Shores leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Ceipal leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 50, Ceipal 30, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
Vendor profile
Ceipal
AI-powered applicant tracking and workforce-management platform for staffing firms that sources, matches, and ranks candidates on a 1-to-100 scale against job requirements.
§ The record
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Ceipal under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Arctic Shores is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Ceipal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2013 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Ceipal 30
4.0 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Ceipal 20
2.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Ceipal 46
1.6 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Ceipal 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Ceipal 46
1.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Ceipal 38
1.0 weighted points to Ceipal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Ceipal 53
0.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +11.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Ceipal.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Ceipal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 30 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 46 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 46 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 53 | +11 | +0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 35 (F) | +11 | +11.0 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Ceipal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Ceipal 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