§ The result
Cegid leads Feenyx by 5 points.
Cegid scores 45 and Feenyx 40 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Cegid: Cegid is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Feenyx on Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cegid 50, Feenyx 42, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 6 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
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Feenyx under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Feenyx 42
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 49% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Feenyx 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Feenyx 25
0.9 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Feenyx 50
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Feenyx 55
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Feenyx 58
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Feenyx 38
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 40 (F) | +5 | +4.7 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources 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 | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 30 | 5 | 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; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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