Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Cegid vs Dover
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Dover
Dover is an AI recruiting platform for startups offering a free applicant tracking system, candidate sourcing via a LinkedIn/Copilot browser extension, OpenAI/Anthropic-powered 0-100 applicant scoring, and a fractional-recruiter marketplace.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Cegid and Dover tie at 45.
Cegid, filed under ATS-integrated, and Dover, filed under Sourcing, tie at 45 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Cegid leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Dover 3, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 30, Dover 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 83% of the weighted advantage Dover holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Cegid4
- Dover3
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency30 vs 52
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Dover under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Cegid is in scope of
| Record | Cegid | Dover |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight43% of the movement so far
Cegid30Dover524.0 weighted points to Dover
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight78% of the movement so far
Cegid50Dover343.2 weighted points to Cegid
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight86% of the movement so far
Cegid55Dover500.8 weighted points to Cegid
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Cegid40Dover440.5 weighted points to Dover
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight95% of the movement so far
Cegid55Dover580.4 weighted points to Dover
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight98% of the movement so far
Cegid32Dover300.3 weighted points to Cegid
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Cegid62Dover600.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Dover, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Dover | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 34 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 45F | - | -0.4 |
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 | Dover | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 0 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 4 | Audit reportSources 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; Dover has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Dover sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Dover, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Dover 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.