§ The result
Talogy leads Ceipal by 7 points.
Talogy scores 42 and Ceipal 35 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Talogy leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Ceipal leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ceipal 30, Talogy 53 — and at a 20% weight it carries 55% of the weighted advantage Talogy holds across the 5 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
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Talogy 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 Talogy is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ceipal | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Talogy 53
4.6 weighted points to Talogy
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Talogy 30
1.8 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Talogy 52
0.9 weighted points to Talogy
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Talogy 52
0.7 weighted points to Talogy
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Talogy 32
0.7 weighted points to Ceipal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Talogy 58
0.4 weighted points to Talogy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.1 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 -7.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 53 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 52 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 52 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 32 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 42 (F) | -7 | -7.7 |
§ 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 | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talogy last reviewed
- August 2, 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