§ The result
Turing takes the total, Ceipal takes more of the criteria.
Turing (Assessment) edges Ceipal (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 36 to 35. Ceipal leads more of the criteria than Turing — 4 to 2 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Turing leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Turing. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ceipal 30, Turing 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 63% of the weighted advantage Turing holds across the 2 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
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
§ The record
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Turing is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Ceipal | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Turing 42
2.4 weighted points to Turing
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Turing 28
1.4 weighted points to Turing
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Turing 27
1.3 weighted points to Ceipal
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Turing 48
0.4 weighted points to Ceipal
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Turing 44
0.3 weighted points to Ceipal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Turing 45
0.1 weighted points to Ceipal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 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 -1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 44 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 45 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 27 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 48 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 36 (F) | -1 | -1.7 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 8 | 7 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing 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