§ The result
2 points separate Fetcher and Ceipal.
Fetcher (Sourcing) edges Ceipal (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 37 to 35. Fetcher leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Ceipal leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (Ceipal 46, Fetcher 55) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Ceipal 20, Fetcher 28), the second being 39% of the weighted advantage Fetcher holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
§ The record
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Fetcher 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 Fetcher is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ceipal | Fetcher |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Fetcher 28
1.4 weighted points to Fetcher
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Fetcher 55
1.3 weighted points to Fetcher
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Fetcher 52
0.7 weighted points to Fetcher
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Fetcher 27
0.6 weighted points to Ceipal
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Fetcher 35
0.4 weighted points to Ceipal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Fetcher 55
0.2 weighted points to Fetcher
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.7 — 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 -2 beside that -2.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Fetcher.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Fetcher | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 27 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 55 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 52 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 37 (F) | -2 | -2.7 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fetcher 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