§ The result
Cangrade and Cegid tie at 45.
Cangrade (Assessment) and Cegid (ATS-integrated) tie at 45 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Cangrade leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Cegid 3, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, is both the widest raw gap (Cangrade 32, Cegid 40) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 68% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Cegid under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Cegid |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2014 | 1983 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Cegid 40
1.0 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Cegid 30
0.9 weighted points to Cangrade
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Cegid 50
0.4 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Cegid 32
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Cegid 55
0.1 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Cegid 55
0.1 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to 0.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that 0.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Cegid.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Cegid | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 45 (F) | - | 0.0 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Cegid | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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