§ The result
Paycom leads Cegid by 5 points.
Paycom finishes 5 points ahead of Cegid under rubric v1.0, 50 to 45, both scored as ATS-integrated entries. Cegid and Paycom each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Paycom holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 50, Paycom 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 3 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
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
Cegid and Paycom are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Paycom 68
3.6 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Paycom 38
1.4 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Paycom 62
1.1 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Paycom 30
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Paycom 38
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Paycom 60
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Paycom.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 68 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 38 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 50 (F) | -5 | -5.4 |
§ 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 | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom last reviewed
- July 17, 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