§ The result
Rippling leads Cegid on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Rippling and Cegid come out 56 and 45 under rubric v1.0, 11 points in favour of Rippling. Rippling takes all 7 criteria and Cegid none of them; the nearest contest is Customer Documentation, Cegid 62 to Rippling 64. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cegid 50, Rippling 73, 20% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Rippling builds across the 7 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Cegid and Rippling 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 | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Rippling 73
4.6 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Rippling 42
2.2 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Rippling 45
1.9 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Rippling 64
1.3 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Rippling 47
0.8 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Rippling 60
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Rippling 64
0.2 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.7 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 -11.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 73 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 45 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 64 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 47 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 64 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 56 (F) | -11 | -11.7 |
§ 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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cegid has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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