§ The result
Cegid leads Alooba on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Cegid, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 45 and Alooba, filed under Assessment, on 38, 7 points apart. Alooba is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Cegid takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is FRIA Support, Alooba 28 to Cegid 32. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 40, Cegid 50, 20% weight), is only 32% of the weighted advantage Cegid builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Vendor profile
Cegid
Cegid's HR suite offers two recruiting lines: Cegid HR Talent Acquisition (ex-DigitalRecruiters), an ATS/CRM with CV parsing, scorecards, automated scoring and an AI conversational agent that pre-qualifies candidates on career sites and WhatsApp, and Cegid Talentsoft (now sold as Cegid HR Suite) recruiting, whose 'Recruiting Match' matches positions to candidates algorithmically.
§ The record
Alooba is filed under Assessment AI, Cegid under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Alooba is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Cegid |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | FR |
| Founded | 2019 | 1983 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Cegid 50
2.0 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Cegid 55
1.5 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Cegid 30
1.4 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Cegid 32
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Cegid 40
0.5 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Cegid 62
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Cegid.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Cegid | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 45 (F) | -7 | -6.3 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Cegid | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba 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: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cegid 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