§ The result
Cangrade leads Ceipal by 10 points.
Cangrade sits 10 points above Ceipal under rubric v1.0 — 45 against 35 — with Cangrade filed under Assessment and Ceipal under ATS-integrated. Cangrade leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Ceipal leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 52, Ceipal 30 — and at a 20% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade 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 Cangrade is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Ceipal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Ceipal 30
4.4 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Ceipal 20
2.7 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Ceipal 46
1.2 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Ceipal 46
1.2 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Ceipal 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Ceipal 38
0.7 weighted points to Ceipal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Ceipal 53
0.7 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Ceipal.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Ceipal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 30 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 20 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 46 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 46 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 53 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 35 (F) | +10 | +10.2 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Ceipal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 documented absences; Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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