HomeCompareCegid vs Jobvite

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Cegid vs Jobvite

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Cegid and Jobvite tie at 45.

Cegid and Jobvite tie at 45 under rubric v1.0 inside the ATS-integrated cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Cegid leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Jobvite 1, with 3 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 30, Jobvite 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 100% of the weighted advantage Jobvite holds across the 1 criterion it leads.

§ The record

Cegid and Jobvite are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.

RecordCegidJobvite
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersFRUS
Founded19832006

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 63% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Cegid 30 · Jobvite 38

    1.4 weighted points to Jobvite

  2. 8% weight · 77% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Cegid 62 · Jobvite 58

    0.3 weighted points to Cegid

  3. 15% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Cegid 32 · Jobvite 30

    0.3 weighted points to Cegid

  4. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Cegid 40 · Jobvite 38

    0.2 weighted points to Cegid

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Cegid minus Jobvite.

CategoryWeightCegidJobviteΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5050--
Bias Audit Transparency18%3038-8-1.4
FRIA Support15%3230+2+0.3
Data Governance Disclosure15%5555--
Human Oversight Design12%5555--
Post-Market Monitoring12%4038+2+0.2
Customer Documentation8%6258+4+0.3
Total100%45 (F)45 (F)--0.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCegidJobvite
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%61Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31—21Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain12—
Data Governance Disclosure15%61Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%60Sources on the vendor's own domain20—
Post-Market Monitoring12%51Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%51Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
All criteria100%336Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain155Sources 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; Jobvite has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jobvite sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Jobvite, across 3 distinct source domains.

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