§ The result
Darwinbox takes the total, Cegid takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Darwinbox and Cegid finish 1 point apart, 46 to 45, as two ATS-integrated entries. Cegid leads more of the criteria, 4 against 2 for Darwinbox, yet Darwinbox takes Article 11 Technical Documentation, which carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 50, Darwinbox 60 — and at a 20% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 2 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
Darwinbox
Darwinbox is an enterprise HCM suite whose recruitment module uses Darwinbox Sense AI (now sold inside its Cortex agent platform) to parse resumes, stack-rank and recommend candidates with stated fit reasoning, run screening and shortlisting agents, and give candidates an assistant for job matching, interview details and FAQs.
§ The record
Cegid and Darwinbox are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Darwinbox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | IN |
| Founded | 1983 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Darwinbox 60
2.0 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Darwinbox 35
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Darwinbox 58
0.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Darwinbox 57
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Darwinbox 28
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Darwinbox 30
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.1 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 -0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Darwinbox.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Darwinbox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -1 | -0.8 |
§ 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 | Darwinbox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 24 | 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; Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Darwinbox 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