HomeCompareCegid vs Fountain

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Cegid vs Fountain

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

1 point separates Cegid and Fountain.

Cegid holds a 1-point edge over Fountain under rubric v1.0, 45 to 44, across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Fountain takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 2 for Cegid, whose share includes Customer Documentation, and 4 are level. Customer Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 62, Fountain 52 — and at an 8% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Fountain 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.

RecordCegidFountain
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersFRUS
Founded19832014

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 8% weight · 55% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Cegid 62 · Fountain 52

    0.8 weighted points to Cegid

  2. 12% weight · 79% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Cegid 55 · Fountain 58

    0.4 weighted points to Fountain

  3. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Cegid 32 · Fountain 30

    0.3 weighted points to Cegid

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 3 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 1.5 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 +0.7.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Cegid minus Fountain.

CategoryWeightCegidFountainΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5050--
Bias Audit Transparency18%3030--
FRIA Support15%3230+2+0.3
Data Governance Disclosure15%5555--
Human Oversight Design12%5558-3-0.4
Post-Market Monitoring12%4040--
Customer Documentation8%6252+10+0.8
Total100%45 (F)44 (F)+1+0.7

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCegidFountain
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%61Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31—21—
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%61Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%60Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%51Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%51Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%336Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain146Sources on the vendor's own domain

Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Cegid last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Fountain 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.