§ The result
3 points separate Cegid and CoderPad.
Cegid holds a 3-point edge over CoderPad under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42, across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. CoderPad takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 5 for Cegid, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 30, CoderPad 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, CoderPad under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only CoderPad is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | CoderPad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · CoderPad 20
1.8 weighted points to Cegid
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · CoderPad 45
1.0 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · CoderPad 28
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · CoderPad 44
0.5 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · CoderPad 58
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · CoderPad 57
0.2 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · CoderPad 54
0.1 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus CoderPad.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | CoderPad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +3.1 |
§ 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 | CoderPad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for CoderPad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 77 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- CoderPad 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