§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, Cegid takes more of the criteria.
Pymetrics (Harver Games), filed under Assessment, comes out 11 points above Cegid, filed under ATS-integrated: 56 against 45 under rubric v1.0. Cegid leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), yet Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 30, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 65% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 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
Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Behavioral assessment using browser-based "games" that infer cognitive and emotional traits. Acquired by Harver in 2022 and folded into the Harver Games product line.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Pymetrics (Harver Games) under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Pymetrics (Harver Games) is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Pymetrics (Harver Games) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80
9.0 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70
4.0 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60
0.8 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 80 | -50 | -9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 56 (F) | -11 | -10.9 |
§ 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 | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources 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; Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) last reviewed
- May 21, 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