§ The result
Cegid leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Cegid (ATS-integrated) opens a 15-point lead on Cognisess (Assessment), 45 to 30. Cegid takes all 7 criteria and Cognisess none of them; the nearest contest is Post-Market Monitoring, Cegid 40 to Cognisess 32. The advantage Cegid holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cegid 50, Cognisess 25, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 34% 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
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Cognisess 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 Cognisess is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Cognisess |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | GB |
| Founded | 1983 | 2011 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Cognisess 25
5.0 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Cognisess 42
1.9 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Cognisess 20
1.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Cognisess 20
1.8 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Cognisess 40
1.8 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Cognisess 42
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Cognisess 32
1.0 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +14.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Cognisess.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Cognisess | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 25 | +25 | +5.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 20 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 42 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 42 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 32 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 30 (F) | +15 | +14.8 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | 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; Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Cognisess 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