HomeCompareCeipal vs Entelo

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Ceipal vs Entelo

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Ceipal leads Entelo on 4 of the 7 criteria.

Ceipal (ATS-integrated) edges Entelo (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 35 to 33. Ceipal leads 4 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 3 are level, so Entelo is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 4 Ceipal leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Ceipal 46 to Entelo 45. Customer Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ceipal 53, Entelo 40 — and at an 8% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Ceipal holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Entelo under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Entelo is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.

RecordCeipalEntelo
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20152011

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 8% weight · 51% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Ceipal 53 · Entelo 40

    1.0 weighted points to Ceipal

  2. 12% weight · 75% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Ceipal 46 · Entelo 42

    0.5 weighted points to Ceipal

  3. 12% weight · 93% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Ceipal 38 · Entelo 35

    0.4 weighted points to Ceipal

  4. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Ceipal 46 · Entelo 45

    0.1 weighted points to Ceipal

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +2.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Ceipal minus Entelo.

CategoryWeightCeipalEnteloΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3030--
Bias Audit Transparency18%2020--
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4645+1+0.1
Human Oversight Design12%4642+4+0.5
Post-Market Monitoring12%3835+3+0.4
Customer Documentation8%5340+13+1.0
Total100%35 (F)33 (F)+2+2.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCeipalEntelo
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11
Bias Audit Transparency18%1122
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%137Sources on the vendor's own domain98Sources on the vendor's own domain

Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Entelo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Entelo, across 3 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Ceipal last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Entelo last reviewed
June 7, 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.