§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Cegid on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai sits 11 points above Cegid under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 45 — with Sapia.ai filed under Assessment and Cegid under ATS-integrated. Sapia.ai leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Cegid is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Sapia.ai leads is FRIA Support, Cegid 32 to Sapia.ai 35. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap (Cegid 30, Sapia.ai 52) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Cegid 50, Sapia.ai 70), 35% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai 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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sapia.ai under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | AU |
| Founded | 1983 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Sapia.ai 70
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Sapia.ai 52
4.0 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Sapia.ai 50
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Sapia.ai 62
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Sapia.ai 62
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Sapia.ai 35
0.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 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 -11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 56 (F) | -11 | -11.5 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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