§ The result
RippleMatch takes the total, Cezanne Recruitment takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, RippleMatch, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 46 and Cezanne Recruitment, filed under ATS-integrated, on 41, 5 points apart. Cezanne Recruitment leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for RippleMatch, yet RippleMatch takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cezanne Recruitment 24, RippleMatch 53 — and at an 18% weight it carries 78% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cezanne Recruitment
Cezanne Recruitment (formerly Occupop) is an applicant tracking system for SMEs that handles job posting, candidate management and interview scheduling. In its Recruitment PLUS+ tier it uses AI to score each CV from 0 to 100 against the job description, alongside weighted screening-question scores, knockout filters and optional AI anonymisation of CVs for hiring-manager review.
Vendor profile
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
§ The record
Cezanne Recruitment is filed under ATS-integrated AI, RippleMatch under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cezanne Recruitment | RippleMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cezanne Recruitment 24 · RippleMatch 53
5.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cezanne Recruitment 40 · RippleMatch 46
1.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cezanne Recruitment 44 · RippleMatch 37
0.8 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cezanne Recruitment 54 · RippleMatch 50
0.6 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cezanne Recruitment 57 · RippleMatch 60
0.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cezanne Recruitment 28 · RippleMatch 27
0.1 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cezanne Recruitment 58 · RippleMatch 57
0.1 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cezanne Recruitment minus RippleMatch.
| Category | Weight | Cezanne Recruitment | RippleMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 46 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 24 | 53 | -29 | -5.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 27 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 37 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 46 (F) | -5 | -5.0 |
§ 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 | Cezanne Recruitment | RippleMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cezanne Recruitment has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Cezanne Recruitment, across 1 distinct source domain, and 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cezanne Recruitment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RippleMatch 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