§ The result
Cegid leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Cegid and Ceipal come out 45 and 35 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Cegid. Cegid leads every one of the 7 criteria, Ceipal none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, Cegid 40 to Ceipal 38. The advantage Cegid holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cegid 50, Ceipal 30, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points Cegid gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Ceipal
AI-powered applicant tracking and workforce-management platform for staffing firms that sources, matches, and ranks candidates on a 1-to-100 scale against job requirements.
§ The record
Cegid and Ceipal are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cegid is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Ceipal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Ceipal 30
4.0 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Ceipal 20
1.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Ceipal 46
1.3 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Ceipal 46
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Ceipal 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Ceipal 53
0.7 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Ceipal 38
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Ceipal.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Ceipal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 30 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 46 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 46 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 53 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 35 (F) | +10 | +10.2 |
§ 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 | Cegid | Ceipal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 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