§ The result
2 points separate Cegid and Paylocity.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Cegid edges Paylocity by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 43. Cegid leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Paylocity leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 50, Paylocity 44 — and at a 20% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Cegid holds across the 5 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
Paylocity
Paylocity is a cloud-based HCM and payroll platform whose talent suite includes an applicant tracking system with generative-AI job-description and invite drafting, one-way video interviews, candidate self-scheduling, and a conversational "AI Assistant."
§ The record
Cegid and Paylocity 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. Only Paylocity is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Paylocity |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 1997 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Paylocity 44
1.2 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Paylocity 50
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Paylocity 33
0.5 weighted points to Paylocity
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Paylocity 58
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Paylocity 30
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Paylocity 42
0.2 weighted points to Paylocity
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Paylocity 54
0.1 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 3.4 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 Paylocity.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Paylocity | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 43 (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 | Paylocity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| 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 | Audit reportSources 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 | 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 | 11 | 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; Paylocity has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 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 Paylocity, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paylocity 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