§ The result
4 points separate Cegid and Radancy.
Cegid holds a 4-point edge over Radancy under rubric v1.0, 45 to 41, across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Cegid leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cegid 30, Radancy 20, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing 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 Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Radancy 20
1.8 weighted points to Cegid
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Radancy 42
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Radancy 28
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Radancy 36
0.5 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Radancy 58
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Radancy 57
0.2 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Radancy 60
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 20 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 36 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 41 (F) | +4 | +3.9 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy 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