§ The result
1 point separates Factorial and Cegid.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial and Cegid finish 1 point apart, 46 to 45, as two ATS-integrated entries. Factorial leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Cegid leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Even Post-Market Monitoring, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cegid 40, Factorial 48, 12% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Factorial builds across the 5 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
Factorial
Factorial is a Barcelona-based all-in-one HR, finance and IT platform for small and mid-sized businesses. Its applicant tracking system has optional AI matching, which shows a percentage fit for applicants it recommends interviewing, plus CV summaries, AI-written job posts and AI Calls, where a voice agent phone-screens candidates and gives each a match label that can move them to the next stage automatically.
§ The record
Cegid and Factorial 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 | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | FR | ES |
| Founded | 1983 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Factorial 48
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Factorial 25
0.9 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Factorial 35
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Factorial 52
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Factorial 58
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Factorial 57
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.5 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 -1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -1 | -1.4 |
§ 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 | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | 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; Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 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 Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Factorial 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