§ The result
4 points separate Cegid and Harri.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Cegid edges Harri by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 41. Cegid leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Harri leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 50, Harri 35 — and at a 20% weight it carries 55% of the weighted advantage Cegid 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
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
§ The record
Cegid and Harri 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 | Harri |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Harri 35
3.0 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Harri 44
1.8 weighted points to Harri
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Harri 22
1.4 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Harri 52
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Harri 52
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Harri 60
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Harri.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Harri | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 35 | +15 | +3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 22 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 44 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 41 (F) | +4 | +3.6 |
§ 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 | Harri | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 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