§ The result
Ceipal leads Cognisess on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Ceipal, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 35 and Cognisess, filed under Assessment, on 30, 5 points apart. Cognisess is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Ceipal takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Data Governance Disclosure, Ceipal 46 to Cognisess 42. The advantage Ceipal holds is spread out: Customer Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Ceipal 53, Cognisess 40, 8% weight), yet it supplies only 23% of the weighted points Ceipal gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Cognisess under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cognisess is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ceipal | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
8% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Cognisess 40
1.0 weighted points to Ceipal
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Cognisess 25
1.0 weighted points to Ceipal
15% weight · 61% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · Cognisess 20
0.8 weighted points to Ceipal
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Cognisess 32
0.7 weighted points to Ceipal
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Cognisess 42
0.6 weighted points to Ceipal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Cognisess 42
0.5 weighted points to Ceipal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 20 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 42 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 42 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 40 | +13 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 30 (F) | +5 | +4.6 |
§ 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 | Ceipal | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 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