§ The result
micro1 takes the total, Ceipal takes more of the criteria.
micro1 (Screening) edges Ceipal (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 36 to 35. Ceipal leads more of the criteria than micro1 — 4 to 2 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which micro1 leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to micro1. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Ceipal 30, micro1 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 94% of the weighted advantage micro1 holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
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
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, micro1 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 micro1 is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ceipal | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · micro1 50
4.0 weighted points to micro1
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · micro1 25
1.6 weighted points to Ceipal
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · micro1 45
0.6 weighted points to Ceipal
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · micro1 22
0.4 weighted points to Ceipal
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · micro1 48
0.2 weighted points to micro1
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · micro1 45
0.1 weighted points to Ceipal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 20 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 45 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 48 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 45 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 36 (F) | -1 | -1.4 |
§ 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 | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 8 | Sources 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; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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