§ The result
1 point separates Arctic Shores and Cegid.
Arctic Shores (Assessment) edges Cegid (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45. Cegid takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 5 for Arctic Shores, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, and Cegid holds it (Arctic Shores 30, Cegid 40, 12% weight), worth 100% of the weighted advantage Cegid builds across the 1 criterion it leads.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
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
Arctic Shores 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 Arctic Shores is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Cegid |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | FR |
| Founded | 2013 | 1983 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Cegid 40
1.2 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Cegid 30
0.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Cegid 32
0.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Cegid 55
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Cegid 62
0.2 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Cegid 55
0.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Cegid.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Cegid | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 45 (F) | +1 | +0.7 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Cegid | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 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 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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