§ The result
Cegid leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Cegid, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 12 points above Emi, filed under Screening: 45 against 33 under rubric v1.0. Of the 7 criteria Emi wins none, and the narrowest lead Cegid holds is on Post-Market Monitoring, Cegid 40 to Emi 35. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cegid 50, Emi 28, 20% weight), is only 36% of the weighted advantage Cegid 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
Emi
Emi runs AI agents on WhatsApp, SMS and Messenger that screen and score frontline job applicants against employer-set criteria, schedule interviews, and collect hiring documents and check them against Mexican government databases.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Emi under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Sourcing and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | AR |
| Founded | 1983 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Emi 28
4.4 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Emi 18
2.2 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Emi 44
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Emi 44
1.3 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Emi 48
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Emi 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Emi 35
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.3 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 +12.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 28 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 18 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 33 (F) | +12 | +12.3 |
§ 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 | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 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 | 3 | 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 a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 19 | 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; Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi 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 Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Emi 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