§ The result
Cegid leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Cegid, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 45 and AmazingHiring, filed under Sourcing, on 37, 8 points apart. Cegid takes all 7 criteria from AmazingHiring without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is FRIA Support, AmazingHiring 30 to Cegid 32. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (AmazingHiring 35, Cegid 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
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
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Cegid under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Cegid is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Cegid |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2011 | 1983 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Cegid 50
3.0 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Cegid 30
1.4 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Cegid 55
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Cegid 40
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Cegid 62
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Cegid 55
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Cegid 32
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Cegid.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Cegid | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 45 (F) | -8 | -8.0 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | Cegid | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 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