HomeCompareCeipal vs HirePro

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Ceipal vs HirePro

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

3 points separate HirePro and Ceipal.

HirePro (Screening) edges Ceipal (ATS-integrated) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 38 to 35. Ceipal takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 3 for HirePro, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Ceipal 20, HirePro 33) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 58% of the weighted advantage HirePro holds across the 3 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HirePro under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.

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

RecordCeipalHirePro
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSIN
Founded20152004

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 52% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Ceipal 20 · HirePro 33

    2.3 weighted points to HirePro

  2. 12% weight · 77% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Ceipal 46 · HirePro 55

    1.1 weighted points to HirePro

  3. 15% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Ceipal 46 · HirePro 50

    0.6 weighted points to HirePro

  4. 12% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Ceipal 38 · HirePro 35

    0.4 weighted points to Ceipal

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

    Customer Documentation

    Ceipal 53 · HirePro 52

    0.1 weighted points to Ceipal

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Ceipal minus HirePro.

CategoryWeightCeipalHireProΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3030--
Bias Audit Transparency18%2033-13-2.3
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4650-4-0.6
Human Oversight Design12%4655-9-1.1
Post-Market Monitoring12%3835+3+0.4
Customer Documentation8%5352+1+0.1
Total100%35 (F)38 (F)-3-3.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCeipalHirePro
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%11—21—
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%137Sources on the vendor's own domain216Sources on the vendor's own domain

Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; HirePro has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 27 for HirePro, across 1 distinct source domain.

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