§ The result
Feenyx leads Ceipal on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Feenyx scores 40 and Ceipal 35 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Feenyx leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Ceipal is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Feenyx leads is Customer Documentation, Ceipal 53 to Feenyx 55. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Ceipal 30, Feenyx 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Feenyx holds across the 5 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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Feenyx under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Feenyx is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ceipal | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Feenyx 42
2.4 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Feenyx 58
1.4 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Feenyx 25
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Feenyx 50
0.6 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Feenyx 55
0.2 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 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 -5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 50 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 58 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 40 (F) | -5 | -5.5 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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