§ The result
Findem leads Cegid by 13 points.
Findem sits 13 points above Cegid under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 45 — with Findem filed under Sourcing and Cegid under ATS-integrated. Cegid takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 6 for Findem, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 30, Findem 83) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 6 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
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Findem under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Findem 83
9.5 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Findem 58
1.6 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Findem 38
0.9 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Findem 60
0.6 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Findem 58
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Findem 57
0.3 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Findem 42
0.2 weighted points to Findem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 83 | -53 | -9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 58 (F) | -13 | -12.9 |
§ 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 | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 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; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem 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 Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 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