§ The result
2 points separate Interviewer.AI and Cegid.
Interviewer.AI (Video interview) edges Cegid (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 45. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Interviewer.AI: Interviewer.AI is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Cegid on Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, and Cegid holds it (Cegid 40, Interviewer.AI 32, 12% weight), worth 75% of the weighted advantage Cegid builds across the 2 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
Interviewer.AI
Interviewer.AI is an asynchronous AI video interview platform that pre-screens and scores candidates by analyzing recorded video responses and resumes against role-specific success factors, producing an "AI Score" breakdown to help recruiters shortlist.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Interviewer.AI under Video interview 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 Interviewer.AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Interviewer.AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | SG |
| Founded | 1983 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Interviewer.AI 32
1.0 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Interviewer.AI 35
0.9 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Interviewer.AI 60
0.8 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Interviewer.AI 60
0.6 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Interviewer.AI 35
0.4 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Interviewer.AI 52
0.4 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Interviewer.AI 58
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Interviewer.AI.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Interviewer.AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 32 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 47 (F) | -2 | -1.8 |
§ 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 | Interviewer.AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 6 | 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; Interviewer.AI has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
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 Interviewer.AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Interviewer.AI 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