§ The result
3 points separate Cegid and Draup.
Cegid holds a 3-point edge over Draup under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42, across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Cegid leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Draup leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Post-Market Monitoring is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 40, Draup 28 — and at a 12% weight it carries 42% 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
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing 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 | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Draup 28
1.4 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Draup 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Draup 33
0.5 weighted points to Draup
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Draup 48
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Draup 57
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Draup 58
0.4 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Draup 54
0.1 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 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 +2.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 28 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +2.5 |
§ 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 | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 23 | 7 | 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; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup 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