§ The result
Teamtailor leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor sits 12 points above Ceipal under rubric v1.0, 47 against 35, with both filed under ATS-integrated. Teamtailor leads every one of the 7 criteria, Ceipal none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, Ceipal 38 to Teamtailor 42. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ceipal 30, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor 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
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
§ The record
Ceipal and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Teamtailor is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ceipal | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2015 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Teamtailor 50
4.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Teamtailor 30
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Teamtailor 58
1.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Teamtailor 54
1.0 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Teamtailor 62
0.7 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Teamtailor 42
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 50 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 58 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 54 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 62 | -9 | -0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 47 (F) | -12 | -12.3 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 14 | 6 | 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; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 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