HomeCompareCeipal vs Infor Talent Science

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Ceipal vs Infor Talent Science

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Infor Talent Science leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.

Infor Talent Science, filed under Assessment, comes out 14 points above Ceipal, filed under ATS-integrated: 49 against 35 under rubric v1.0. Infor Talent Science takes all 7 criteria and Ceipal none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, Ceipal 46 to Infor Talent Science 50. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ceipal 30, Infor Talent Science 58, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Infor Talent Science holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Infor Talent Science under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.

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

RecordCeipalInfor Talent Science
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20152002

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 38% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Ceipal 30 · Infor Talent Science 58

    5.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science

  2. 18% weight · 66% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Ceipal 20 · Infor Talent Science 42

    4.0 weighted points to Infor Talent Science

  3. 15% weight · 77% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Ceipal 46 · Infor Talent Science 57

    1.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science

  4. 15% weight · 87% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Ceipal 25 · Infor Talent Science 35

    1.5 weighted points to Infor Talent Science

  5. 12% weight · 93% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Ceipal 38 · Infor Talent Science 45

    0.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science

  6. 8% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Ceipal 53 · Infor Talent Science 60

    0.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science

  7. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Ceipal 46 · Infor Talent Science 50

    0.5 weighted points to Infor Talent Science

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Ceipal minus Infor Talent Science.

CategoryWeightCeipalInfor Talent ScienceΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3058-28-5.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2042-22-4.0
FRIA Support15%2535-10-1.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%4657-11-1.6
Human Oversight Design12%4650-4-0.5
Post-Market Monitoring12%3845-7-0.8
Customer Documentation8%5360-7-0.6
Total100%35 (F)49 (F)-14-14.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCeipalInfor Talent Science
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%11—31Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%137Sources on the vendor's own domain277Sources on the vendor's own domain

Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Ceipal last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Infor Talent Science 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.