§ The result
HackerRank leads Cegid on 5 of the 7 criteria.
HackerRank, filed under Assessment, comes out 10 points above Cegid, filed under ATS-integrated: 55 against 45 under rubric v1.0. Cegid is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: HackerRank takes 5, the remaining 2 are level, and the nearest of those 5 is FRIA Support, Cegid 32 to HackerRank 35. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 30, HackerRank 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 65% of the weighted advantage HackerRank holds across the 5 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
HackerRank
HackerRank is a technical skills assessment platform for developer hiring that uses coding tests, interviews, and AI-based features (question generation, ML plagiarism/AI-code detection, and image-analysis proctoring) to evaluate candidates.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HackerRank under Assessment 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. Only HackerRank is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · HackerRank 68
6.8 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · HackerRank 60
2.0 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · HackerRank 60
0.6 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · HackerRank 45
0.6 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · HackerRank 35
0.4 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -10.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 68 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 45 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 55 (F) | -10 | -10.5 |
§ 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 | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources 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 | 14 | 4 | 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; HackerRank has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerRank 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