§ The result
RippleMatch takes the total, Cegid takes more of the criteria.
RippleMatch (Sourcing) edges Cegid (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45. Cegid leads more of the criteria than RippleMatch — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which RippleMatch leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to RippleMatch. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 30, RippleMatch 53) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 95% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 2 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
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, RippleMatch 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.
| Record | Cegid | RippleMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · RippleMatch 53
4.1 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · RippleMatch 46
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · RippleMatch 27
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · RippleMatch 50
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · RippleMatch 37
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · RippleMatch 57
0.2 weighted points to RippleMatch
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · RippleMatch 60
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus RippleMatch.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | RippleMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 46 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 53 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 27 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 37 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 46 (F) | -1 | -1.6 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 35 | 7 | 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; RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 81 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RippleMatch 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