HomeCompareCeipal vs hireEZ

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Ceipal vs hireEZ

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

hireEZ leads Ceipal on 5 of the 7 criteria.

hireEZ scores 42 and Ceipal 35 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. hireEZ 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 hireEZ leads is Customer Documentation, Ceipal 53 to hireEZ 58. Data Governance Disclosure is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ceipal 46, hireEZ 60, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 29% of the weighted advantage hireEZ holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, hireEZ 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 hireEZ is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.

RecordCeipalhireEZ
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20152015

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 15% weight · 29% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Ceipal 46 · hireEZ 60

    2.1 weighted points to hireEZ

  2. 18% weight · 53% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Ceipal 20 · hireEZ 30

    1.8 weighted points to hireEZ

  3. 20% weight · 75% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Ceipal 30 · hireEZ 38

    1.6 weighted points to hireEZ

  4. 12% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Ceipal 46 · hireEZ 58

    1.4 weighted points to hireEZ

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Ceipal 53 · hireEZ 58

    0.4 weighted points to hireEZ

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -7.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.3.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Ceipal minus hireEZ.

CategoryWeightCeipalhireEZΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3038-8-1.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2030-10-1.8
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4660-14-2.1
Human Oversight Design12%4658-12-1.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%3838--
Customer Documentation8%5358-5-0.4
Total100%35 (F)42 (F)-7-7.3

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCeipalhireEZ
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources 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 domain95Sources on the vendor's own domain

Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; hireEZ has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for hireEZ, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Ceipal last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
hireEZ 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.