§ The result
Dayforce leads Cegid on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Dayforce and Cegid come out 57 and 45 under rubric v1.0, 12 points in favour of Dayforce. Dayforce takes all 7 criteria and Cegid none of them; the nearest contest is Post-Market Monitoring, Cegid 40 to Dayforce 47. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cegid 50, Dayforce 74, 20% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Dayforce builds 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
Dayforce
Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and analytics.
§ The record
Cegid and Dayforce are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Cegid | Dayforce |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 1992 |
§ 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 · Dayforce 74
4.8 weighted points to Dayforce
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Dayforce 42
2.2 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Dayforce 68
1.6 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Dayforce 40
1.2 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Dayforce 63
1.2 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Dayforce 47
0.8 weighted points to Dayforce
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Dayforce 70
0.6 weighted points to Dayforce
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Dayforce.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Dayforce | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 74 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 63 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 68 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 47 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 70 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 57 (F) | -12 | -12.4 |
§ 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 | Dayforce | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 4 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Dayforce has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Dayforce, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Dayforce last reviewed
- August 2, 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