§ The result
3 points separate Cegid and Mercer | Mettl.
Cegid (ATS-integrated) edges Mercer | Mettl (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Cegid, with 1 level: Cegid is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Mercer | Mettl on Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 50, Mercer | Mettl 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 46% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 5 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
Mercer | Mettl
Mercer | Mettl is an online talent assessment and remote-proctoring platform offering psychometric, aptitude, coding, and skills tests plus AI-assisted exam proctoring and scoring for hiring, certification, and L&D.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Mercer | Mettl 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 Mercer | Mettl is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Mercer | Mettl |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | IN |
| Founded | 1983 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Mercer | Mettl 38
2.4 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Mercer | Mettl 42
2.2 weighted points to Mercer | Mettl
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Mercer | Mettl 45
1.2 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Mercer | Mettl 52
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Mercer | Mettl 28
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Mercer | Mettl 38
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Mercer | Mettl.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Mercer | Mettl | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +3.1 |
§ 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 | Mercer | Mettl | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 5 | 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; Mercer | Mettl has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Mercer | Mettl, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Mercer | Mettl 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