§ The result
1 point separates HiBob and Cegid.
Under rubric v1.0, HiBob and Cegid finish 1 point apart, 46 to 45, as two ATS-integrated entries. Cegid takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for HiBob, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Cegid — Cegid 30, HiBob 20, on an 18% weight — which is 96% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 2 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
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
§ The record
Cegid and HiBob 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 | HiBob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | GB |
| Founded | 1983 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · HiBob 20
1.8 weighted points to Cegid
20% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · HiBob 55
1.0 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · HiBob 63
1.0 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · HiBob 47
0.8 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · HiBob 35
0.4 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · HiBob 57
0.3 weighted points to HiBob
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · HiBob 61
0.1 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 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 -1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus HiBob.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | HiBob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 63 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 47 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 61 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -1 | -1.7 |
§ 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 | HiBob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 29 | 7 | 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; HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 75 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiBob 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