§ The result
Hireology leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.
Hireology finishes 22 points clear of Ceipal inside the ATS-integrated cohort under rubric v1.0: 57 against 35. Ceipal leads none of the 7 criteria, and Hireology is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ceipal 20, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 52% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 7 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
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Ceipal and Hireology are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Hireology is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ceipal | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Hireology 83
11.3 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Hireology 50
4.0 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Hireology 59
2.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · Hireology 35
1.5 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Hireology 57
1.3 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Hireology 52
0.9 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Hireology 58
0.4 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -22 beside that -22.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 83 | -63 | -11.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 52 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 57 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 59 | -21 | -2.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 57 (F) | -22 | -22.0 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Ceipal | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 4 | 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; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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