§ The result
Cegid leads Personio by 5 points.
Cegid finishes 5 points ahead of Personio under rubric v1.0, 45 to 40, both scored as ATS-integrated entries. Personio takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Cegid, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap (Cegid 62, Personio 50) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Cegid 50, Personio 40), 37% of the weighted advantage Cegid builds across the 6 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
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
§ The record
Cegid and Personio 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.
| Record | Cegid | Personio |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | DE |
| Founded | 1983 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Personio 40
2.0 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Personio 48
1.0 weighted points to Personio
8% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Personio 50
1.0 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Personio 25
0.9 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Personio 48
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Personio 52
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Personio 30
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 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 +4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Personio.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Personio | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 40 (F) | +5 | +4.5 |
§ 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 | Personio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 13 | 8 | Sources 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; Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Personio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
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 Personio, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 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