Recruiting
Eploy
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Eploy Ltd · www.eploy.co.uk
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Eploy, a UK recruiting platform, is strongest on applicant data governance, scored 6 to 7 by the judges: scheduled anonymisation deletes CVs and files, consent carries expiry with automated re-consent reminders, every consent change is logged with who edited it and when, and a candidate portal supports access, rectification and erasure requests. The candidate pipeline takes a uniform 6 for structured panel reviews, required forms before a candidate progresses or is rejected, and scorecards that grade automatically. AI screening control is the weakest ground, spanning 1 to 3: generative AI and a marketplace AI offering are advertised, yet no captured page states what they evaluate, their inputs, the model provider, where processing runs, or a per-feature switch-off. Sovereignty also spans 1 to 3 on identical evidence: UK datacentres only, ICO registration, a UK GDPR processor role, The Access Group as owner, and no public information on EU hosting or a subprocessor list. The spread on both reflects severity, not differing findings. Job distribution takes a uniform 4 for Indeed alone, and we found no public pricing information.
Speaks for it
- Scheduled anonymisation deletes CVs and other files, running on your preferred day of the month
- Every consent change is logged in a history showing who edited it and when, with configurable re-consent reminders
- A candidate portal supports access, rectification and erasure requests from applicants
- Required review forms and scorecards with calculated grades must be completed before a candidate progresses or is rejected
- A documented RESTful API covers candidates, applications, files and placements, alongside contract e-signatures and single sign-on with MFA
Held against it
- Advertised generative-AI features come with no captured statement of what they evaluate, their inputs, the model provider, where processing runs, or a per-feature switch-off
- The captured pages state UK datacentres only under UK GDPR, with no public information on EU hosting or a subprocessor list
- Job distribution is evidenced only for Indeed, with no public information on German boards, a branded career page or Google for Jobs markup
- HR and payroll handover rests on a placements endpoint the customer builds on, with no public information on maintained connectors to named HR systems, SCIM or webhooks
- We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, or on retention rules set per country or entity
Best for
- You hire in the UK and put applicant data governance first — scheduled anonymisation, expiring consent and candidate self-service are the best-documented parts of the platform
- You want defensible hiring decisions through required review forms and scorecards that grade automatically
- You advertise primarily on Indeed and want automatic XML posting plus in-system booking of paid advertising
- You have developers available to build HR and payroll handover on the documented RESTful API
Avoid if
- You need documented AI controls — stated inputs, a named provider or a per-feature switch-off — before signing or a works council agreement
- Your applicants' data must remain in the EU, given that the captured pages state UK datacentres only and we found no public information on an EU hosting option
- You hire mainly in the German market, where only one distribution channel, Indeed, is evidenced in the captured pages
- You expect maintained connectors to named HR systems out of the box, since the captured pages frame HR and payroll handover as something the customer builds on the API
The scores
Applicant management & hiring workflow
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The daily work of hiring: pipeline stages per job, collaboration with hiring managers, structured evaluation, interview scheduling and candidate communication — judged on whether a decision is documented rather than merely made.
0 — An inbox of applications with a status field; no stages per job, no shared evaluation and no record of who decided what.
3 — A fixed pipeline with drag-and-drop stages and email templates, but hiring managers see everything or nothing, and evaluation is free-text comments.
5 — Configurable pipelines per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, structured scorecards, interview scheduling with calendar integration, and templated candidate emails in German.
8 — Approval workflows for requisitions and offers, role-based access per team and location, structured interview kits, bulk actions with automated but reviewable candidate communication, and a history on each candidate of every stage change and who made it.
10 — The pipeline is an auditable record of a fair process: every decision attributed and reasoned, evaluation criteria fixed before applications arrive, reporting on time-to-hire and drop-off per stage, and the full history exportable per candidate for an AGG dispute.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Structured reviews with configurable panel sizes and visibility, scorecards whose calculated grades set the application status, and required forms before a candidate can progress or be rejected are exactly the discipline that makes a decision defensible. We found no public information on approval workflows for requisitions and offers, interview scheduling with calendar integration, or a record of who moved each candidate between stages. 2 3 7
The Employer Branding Manager
Structured evaluation is genuinely worked out: configurable reviewer counts and visibility, scorecards with calculated scores and automatic grading, required forms before a candidate can progress or be rejected, and permissions over who may move a candidate, backed by granular user permissions and full comment and communication history per candidate. We found no public information on approval workflows for requisitions and offers, calendar-based interview scheduling, or an attributed record of who made each stage change. 2 3 7
The Data Protection Officer
The structured review machinery is real: scorecards with calculated grades, forms that must be completed before a candidate progresses or is rejected, configurable panel visibility, and control over who may move a candidate at each stage, with a full history of team comments and communications kept per candidate. I found no public information on interview scheduling with calendar integration, on requisition or offer approvals, or on a stage-change record attributing every move to a named user. 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
Structured panel reviews with required forms, configurable reviewer counts, and scorecards that grade automatically are well documented, alongside a full history of team comments and communications on each candidate and granular control over who may move a candidate and what reviewers see. We found no public information on approval workflows for requisitions and offers, on a per-stage log naming who moved a candidate and when, or on interview scheduling with calendar integration — exactly the records a works council needs to reconstruct a fair process afterwards. That places this between solid structured evaluation and an auditable process. 2 3 8
The HR IT Integrator
Structured panel reviews with configurable visibility of responses and scores, scorecards that gate progression with calculated grading, configurable permissions over who may move a candidate, and a full history of team comments and tracked communications per candidate make the evaluation a documented one. We found no public information on interview scheduling with calendar integration, approval workflows for offers, or bulk actions, which keeps this below the top band. 2 3 7 11
The Skeptic
The structured-review machinery is real and unusually detailed: required forms before a candidate can progress or be rejected, configurable panel visibility of scores and completion, scorecards with calculated grades, and configurable permissions over who may move a candidate. But we found no public information on interview scheduling or calendar integration, on hiring-manager access scoped to their own vacancies, or on any record of who changed a candidate's stage — so decisions are documented far better than they are attributed. 2 3 7
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting a vacancy in front of the right people and letting them apply: job-board distribution for the German market, the career page, and an application process that does not lose candidates on a phone.
0 — No career page and no job-board distribution; vacancies are posted by hand elsewhere.
3 — A basic hosted job list and free aggregator feeds, with no named German boards, and an application form that requires an account or a desktop.
5 — A branded career page, multiposting to named boards including the Bundesagentur für Arbeit and at least one major German paid board, Google for Jobs markup, and mobile application without an account.
8 — Multiposting with booking and budget tracking per board from inside the system, source attribution per applicant, career page in several languages with an embeddable widget, accessibility stated, and an application form configurable per job.
10 — Distribution is measured, not only broadcast: cost and applicants per channel reported, the career page meets a stated accessibility standard, one-click or CV-parse application on mobile, and candidates can see their own status and withdraw themselves.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The captured pages document one channel rather than multiposting: vacancies flow automatically to Indeed, applications come back mobile-optimised via Indeed Apply, paid Indeed advertising can be booked from inside the system, and source reporting is claimed. We found no public information on German boards, a branded career page, Google for Jobs markup, or accessibility of the application process. 4 5
The Employer Branding Manager
Indeed is the one board with real depth: automatic posting via XML feed, paid advertising booked directly from the system, source reporting, and a mobile-optimized apply with an Indeed Resume. Beyond the Indeed pages we found no public information on multiposting to German boards, a branded career page, Google for Jobs markup, accessibility, or an application flow without an account — mobile apply is documented only through the candidate's Indeed account. 4 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
One channel is documented in depth: vacancies feed automatically to Indeed, advertising can be booked from inside the system, applications arrive mobile-optimised through Indeed Apply, and source reporting per hire is described. Beyond Indeed, we found no public information on multiposting to other boards including German boards, on a branded career page, or on markup for Google for Jobs. 4 5
The Works Council Advocate
The evidenced distribution story centres on Indeed: automatic posting via XML feed, paid advertising booked from inside the system, mobile-optimized Indeed Apply, and source reporting on hires. We found no public information on the vendor's own career page, on any German board such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, on Google for Jobs markup, or on accessibility — so for a German hiring market only one named channel is evidenced. 4 5 8
The HR IT Integrator
Vacancies go to Indeed automatically via an XML feed, Indeed Apply gives a mobile-optimized application, paid Indeed advertising can be booked from inside the system, and source reporting is claimed per hire. That is one named board with booking; we found no public information on a branded career page, German job boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, or Google for Jobs markup. 4 5
The Skeptic
The captured distribution story is a single board: Indeed, with automatic XML posting, paid advertising bookable from inside Eploy, and a mobile-optimized apply with Indeed Resume — respectable, but one channel is not multiposting. We found no public information on a branded career page, on Google for Jobs markup, on career-page languages or accessibility, or on any German board at all. 4 5
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to the data of people who were not hired: automatic deletion on a configurable deadline, talent-pool consent that expires, data-subject requests, and access logging — the criterion the employer is actually liable for.
0 — Nothing stated about retention or deletion; applicant data stays until someone removes it by hand.
3 — Manual deletion and an anonymise button exist, but no automatic deadline, and talent-pool storage has no stated consent step.
5 — Automatic deletion or anonymisation after a configurable period after rejection, talent-pool storage only with recorded consent, and a documented way to answer an access or erasure request.
8 — Retention rules per country or entity, consent with expiry and automated re-consent requests, candidate self-service for their own data, a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, and permissions a works council can review.
10 — Governance that can be evidenced: deletion runs are logged and reportable, special-category data can be excluded or restricted by field, every export is recorded, and the vendor publishes how deletion propagates to backups and to the job boards and tools it syncs with.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Governance is unusually well documented: scheduled anonymisation that strips personal data and deletes CVs, consent with expiry and configurable re-consent reminders, an audit history of every consent change showing who edited it and when, and candidate self-service for access and rectification. We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, retention rules per country, or how deletion propagates to backups and to the job boards. 6 7
The Employer Branding Manager
This is the vendor's strongest suit: scheduled anonymisation that deletes CVs and files, granular consents with expiry and automated re-consent reminders, an audit history of every consent change showing who edited it and when, and a candidate portal supporting access, rectification and erasure requests. We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, per-country retention rules, or how deletion propagates to backups and connected job boards — and the compliance framing is UK GDPR rather than EU. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
This is the vendor's strongest ground: consent carries an expiry with automated reminder scheduling, every consent change is logged with who edited it and when, anonymisation automatically deletes CVs and files, and candidates get portal self-service for access and rectification. Anonymisation is set to run on a preferred day of the month rather than on a stated deadline per rejection. I found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, on reportable deletion runs, or on retention periods set per country or entity. 6 7
The Works Council Advocate
This is the strongest part of the offer: anonymisation that deletes CVs and files on a monthly schedule, talent-pool consent with expiry and automated re-consent reminders, an audit history of every consent change naming who edited it and when, and a candidate portal where applicants can view, rectify and request deletion of their data. We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, on retention periods set per country or entity, or on whether deletion runs are themselves recorded — the evidencing my colleagues and I would insist on in an agreement. The one gap that worries me is who saw which internal candidate's file. 6 7
The HR IT Integrator
Scheduled anonymisation that strips personal data, notes and files, granular consent with expiry, automated re-consent reminders and a full audit history of who changed a consent, plus a candidate portal supporting access, rectification, erasure and opt-in management — this is a real governance story, not a promise. We found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, per-country retention rules, or how deletion propagates to backups and synced tools. 6 7
The Skeptic
This is the strongest area: irreversible anonymisation scheduled on a chosen day of the month with CVs and files deleted, consent with expiry and automated re-consent reminders, a change history showing who edited a consent and when, and a candidate portal for access and rectification requests. What keeps it below the top band is that we found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, on retention rules per country, or on whether the deletion runs themselves are logged and reportable. 6 7
AI screening transparency & control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether any automated ranking, matching, parsing or rejection is disclosed, explained and switchable — recruitment is a high-risk use under the EU AI Act, and an undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is a co-determination matter. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — AI matching or scoring is marketed with no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be turned off.
3 — AI features are described as a benefit, with a general assurance that humans decide, but no documentation of inputs, no per-feature switch and no model or provider named.
5 — Each AI feature is described with its purpose and inputs, can be disabled per account, never rejects a candidate without a human action, and the model provider or subprocessor is named.
8 — AI outputs are shown with their reasoning to the recruiter, candidates are informed when AI is used, protected attributes are stated to be excluded, EU processing is available for the AI features, and the vendor publishes its EU AI Act position.
10 — The vendor treats recruitment AI as the high-risk system the law says it is: documentation a works council can base an agreement on, bias testing described and repeated, logs of every AI-assisted decision retained for audit, and every AI feature off by default until the customer enables it.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The vendor's own product tree advertises generative AI and an AI assistant in its marketplace, yet we found no public information on what these evaluate, their inputs, whether each can be switched off, where the processing runs, or any EU AI Act position. A score I cannot explain to a candidate or a works council is worthless to me, and nothing captured here would let me. 8 9
The Employer Branding Manager
The vendor's site carries a generative-AI page and an AI product in its marketplace, so AI features are being sold, yet no captured text states what they evaluate, which data goes in, where processing runs, who the model provider is, or how a customer turns them off. We found no public information on any EU AI Act position or a human-decides assurance either. For a high-risk recruitment use, that silence is the finding. 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages include a vendor page for generative AI and an AI offering in the marketplace, so AI features exist in this product — but we found no public information on what any of it evaluates, where the models run, which provider processes candidate data, or whether each feature can be switched off per account. For recruitment, a high-risk use under the EU AI Act, the absence of any confirmed statement on inputs or controls is itself the finding. 8 9
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pages point to generative AI features and an AI partner in the marketplace, yet we found no public information on what any AI feature evaluates, what inputs it uses, where it runs, who the model provider is, or whether a customer can switch each feature off. Without documentation of inputs, a per-feature switch and a named provider, no works council can base a co-determination agreement on this — no answer, no agreement. 8 9
The HR IT Integrator
Scorecards automatically grade evaluations and can set the application status or interview outcome, and the captured pages market generative AI plus an AI marketplace partner — but we found no public information on what those AI features evaluate, whether each can be switched off, where they run, who the model provider is, or any position on the EU AI Act. For a high-risk recruitment use, that is close to nothing a works council could work with. 3 8 9
The Skeptic
The captured pages include generative-AI and an 'Erica Farmer AI' offering, yet nothing captured states what these features evaluate, where the models run, who the provider is, or whether a customer can switch them off. The one captured automated evaluation — scorecards that "automatically grade interviewee evaluations to set the application status" — comes with no disclosure of its inputs beyond the forms; we found no public EU AI Act position either. 8 9 3
HR handover, integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The hire does not end in the ATS: handover to the HR system and payroll, identity and calendar integration, e-signature for contracts, and an API a team can build on.
0 — No integrations and no API; a hired candidate is retyped into the HR system.
3 — A CSV export and an email integration, with a partner marketplace that names no German HR or payroll systems.
5 — A documented API, calendar and video-interview integration, and a named handover to at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, DATEV-connected systems, SAP SuccessFactors).
8 — Maintained integrations with several named HR systems carrying the hire's data without retyping, SSO and SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, and an API with published limits.
10 — Integration is designed rather than bolted on: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, handover that carries documents and consent status into the HR record, deletion that propagates to connected systems, and the vendor maintaining the German integrations itself.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
A documented RESTful API with dedicated placements and files endpoints built to carry offers, costs and salaries into HR and payroll, plus candidate e-signature of contracts and single sign-on, means the hire does not die in retyping. We found no public information on maintained handovers to named HR systems common in DACH, calendar or video-interview integration, SCIM, webhooks, or published API limits. 7 10 11
The Employer Branding Manager
A documented REST API with a knowledge base, help guides and examples, and a broad endpoint set including a placements endpoint explicitly for HR and payroll handover; SSO and contract e-signatures with tamper-stamped documents are also documented. We found no public information naming any HR system the handover actually connects to, no calendar or video-interview integration, and nothing on SCIM, webhooks or published API limits. 7 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
A documented REST API with knowledge-base guides and named endpoints for candidates, applications, files including CVs and e-signatures, and placements is real, and candidates e-sign contracts through the portal with uniquely stamped documents, under SSO and MFA. The handover story stops at the placements endpoint being usable to build HR and payroll integrations; we found no public information on any named HR or payroll system, on SCIM, webhooks, or published API limits. 7 10 11
The Works Council Advocate
A documented REST API with endpoints for candidates, applications, placements and files — explicitly framed for building HR and payroll integrations without retyping — plus native e-signature for contracts, SSO and multi-factor authentication is more than bolt-on. We found no public information on maintained integrations with named HR systems common in the DACH market, on SCIM, on webhooks, or on published API limits. 7 10 11
The HR IT Integrator
A documented RESTful API with a knowledge base and examples, an endpoint set covering candidates, applications, files with documents and e-signatures, and a placements endpoint explicitly built for HR and payroll handover, alongside SSO and candidate e-signatures — the raw material for a hire to travel with its documents exists. But we found no public information on maintained connectors to named HR systems such as Personio or SAP SuccessFactors, SCIM, webhooks, published API limits, or who maintains the integrations, so handover remains something the customer builds itself. 10 11 7
The Skeptic
A documented RESTful API with a knowledge base and a genuinely broad endpoint set, e-signature for contracts with stamped document IDs, and SSO with MFA. But the Placements endpoint frames HR and payroll connections as something the customer builds on the API, and we found no public information on a maintained, named handover to any HR system, on calendar or video-interview integration, on webhooks, or on published API limits. 10 11 7
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where applicant data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are — including the job boards, CV parsers and AI providers the system passes CVs to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories holding the customer's own data, because every record belongs to a third party who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and CV parsing or AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or CV parsing and AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — parsing, AI, email delivery — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including parsing and AI providers, and a DPA that covers applicant data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and the AI and CV-parsing features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Every applicant record would sit in UK-only datacentres with a UK vendor — now owned by The Access Group — positioned as a UK GDPR processor, and we found no public information on the subcontractors behind the datacentres, the job-board feeds or the AI. We found no public information on an EU hosting option or an EU contracting entity. 5 7
The Employer Branding Manager
The vendor presents itself as a UK data processor under the UK GDPR, ICO-registered, owned by The Access Group and hosting exclusively in UK datacentres — so a German employer's applicant records sit outside the EU with no stated transfer safeguard. We found no public information on an EU contracting entity, an EU hosting option, a subprocessor list including where the Indeed integration sends application data, or where any AI or CV parsing runs. 4 5 7
The Data Protection Officer
The pages state "Eploy only use UK datacentres", frame compliance entirely around the UK GDPR and ICO registration, and name an owner, The Access Group, for which we found no public information on jurisdiction. Subprocessors are addressed only as unnamed "suppliers" under data processing agreements — no published list names the datacentres, any CV parser, or the AI provider behind the marketplace offering. For data belonging to applicants who never chose this vendor, the chain beyond the vendor's own walls is unevidenced. 5 7 9
The Works Council Advocate
Hosting is stated as UK-only datacentres with ISO27001-certified suppliers, the vendor registers with the UK ICO as a processor under UK GDPR, and the contracting entity is British, not European. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, or on where CV parsing and the AI features run — UK hosting alone is no answer to the question of where applicants' data, and the job boards and AI providers it flows to, actually sit. 5 7
The HR IT Integrator
Hosting is stated as UK datacentres only, Eploy acts as a processor under UK GDPR, is registered with the ICO, and sits under The Access Group — for an EU employer that is a non-EU chain for data belonging to people who never chose this vendor. We found no public information on a published subprocessor list or on where CV parsing and the AI features run. 7 5 10
The Skeptic
By its own statements the vendor is UK-only: UK datacentres exclusively, ICO registration, UK GDPR as the processor's framework, and The Access Group as owner — a third-country chain for any European applicant. The datacentre suppliers are described as ISO27001-certified and under data processing agreements, but the captured pages do not name them, and we found no public information on EU hosting as an option or a subprocessor list covering CV parsing or AI providers. 7 5
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing model (per employee, per open job, per recruiter seat), job-board posting costs, add-ons for AI, career page or integrations, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis (employees, jobs, seats) or which features sit in which tier is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis and main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (paid job-board postings, AI features, integrations, extra seats) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, job-board posting costs or the booking model stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given company size, number of open roles and recruiter seats, with every add-on, posting package and overage published.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
We found no public pricing information at all: no tiers, no pricing basis per seat or per vacancy, no add-on or job-board posting costs, and no minimum term — every number would come from a sales conversation. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
We found no public information on any price: no tier prices, no pricing basis per employee, open job or recruiter seat, no add-on prices, no posting cost for Indeed or any other board, no minimum term and no VAT treatment. The homepage sells outcome ranges — agency-spend reduction, time-to-hire, offer acceptance — but never money, so the annual invoice is a pure sales conversation. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public pricing information on the captured pages — no prices, no tier structure, no pricing basis by employee, job or recruiter seat, and no minimum term. A buyer cannot derive any part of the annual cost from what is published. 1 8
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public pricing information on the captured pages: no tier prices, no pricing basis in employees, jobs or recruiter seats, no add-on prices for AI, career page or integrations, and no minimum term. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual invoice from what is published; every figure is a sales conversation. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pages name modules — applicant tracking, offers and onboarding, recruitment analytics, employee referrals, recruitment marketing — with no figures, no pricing basis per seat or job, and no minimum term anywhere we looked. Every price is therefore a sales conversation; we found no public pricing information at all. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on pricing of any kind — no tier prices, no pricing basis in employees, jobs or seats, no minimum term, no posting costs and no add-on prices. The captured homepage instead quotes outcome statistics such as agency spend reduced by 38% to 87%, which tells a buyer nothing about the invoice. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (eploy.co.uk, eploy.com/product/applicant-tracking-system/candidate-assessment/collaboration, eploy.com/product/applicant-tracking-system/candidate-assessment/structured-reviews, eploy.com/product/recruitment-marketing/indeed-integration, eploy.com/product/eploy-marketplace/indeed, eploy.com/gdpr-compliant-applicant-tracking-system and 5 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 21 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.eploy.co.uk Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.eploy.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →