§ The result
Cegid leads Recruiterflow by 9 points.
Cegid finishes 9 points ahead of Recruiterflow under rubric v1.0, 45 to 36, both scored as ATS-integrated entries. Cegid leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Recruiterflow leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cegid 50, Recruiterflow 33, 20% weight), is only 39% 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Cegid and Recruiterflow are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cegid is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Recruiterflow 33
3.4 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Recruiterflow 18
2.2 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Recruiterflow 44
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Recruiterflow 33
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Recruiterflow 56
0.5 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Recruiterflow 58
0.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Recruiterflow 30
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 33 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 18 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 36 (F) | +9 | +8.5 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 25 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow last reviewed
- September 25, 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