§ The result
Crosschq leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.
Crosschq, filed under Screening, comes out 12 points above Ceipal, filed under ATS-integrated: 47 against 35 under rubric v1.0. Crosschq leads every one of the 7 criteria, Ceipal none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, Ceipal 38 to Crosschq 40. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Ceipal 30, Crosschq 50, 20% weight), is only 32% of the weighted advantage Crosschq builds across the 7 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
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
§ The record
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Crosschq under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Crosschq is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ceipal | Crosschq |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Crosschq 50
4.0 weighted points to Crosschq
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Crosschq 38
3.2 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Crosschq 62
1.9 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Crosschq 58
1.8 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · Crosschq 30
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Crosschq 62
0.7 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Crosschq 40
0.2 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Crosschq.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Crosschq | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 38 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 58 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 62 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 62 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 47 (F) | -12 | -12.7 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 7 | 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 | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 38 | 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; Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Crosschq 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