§ The result
UKG leads Ceipal on 6 of the 7 criteria.
UKG scores 44 and Ceipal 35 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the ATS-integrated cohort. UKG leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Ceipal is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 UKG leads is Customer Documentation, Ceipal 53 to UKG 55. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Ceipal 30, UKG 48, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 6 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Ceipal and UKG 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 UKG is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ceipal | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2015 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · UKG 48
3.6 weighted points to UKG
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · UKG 30
1.8 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · UKG 35
1.5 weighted points to UKG
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · UKG 56
1.5 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · UKG 52
0.7 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · UKG 55
0.2 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 56 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 52 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 55 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 44 (F) | -9 | -9.3 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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