§ The result
softgarden leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.
Inside the ATS-integrated cohort, rubric v1.0 puts softgarden on 42 and Ceipal on 35, 7 points apart. softgarden is ahead of Ceipal on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at Ceipal 20 to softgarden 22. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ceipal 30, softgarden 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage softgarden 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Ceipal and softgarden 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 softgarden is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ceipal | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · softgarden 42
2.4 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · softgarden 58
1.4 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · softgarden 54
1.2 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · softgarden 44
0.7 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · softgarden 58
0.4 weighted points to softgarden
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · softgarden 22
0.4 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 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 softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 22 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 54 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 58 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 44 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Ceipal | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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