§ The result
3 points separate Cegid and Talogy.
Cegid holds a 3-point edge over Talogy under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42, across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Cegid leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Talogy leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Cegid 40, Talogy 32) and FRIA Support at 15% (Cegid 32, Talogy 25), the second being 33% 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
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Talogy 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 Talogy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 28% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Talogy 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Talogy 32
1.0 weighted points to Cegid
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Talogy 53
0.6 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Talogy 52
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Talogy 52
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Talogy 58
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 53 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 32 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +2.5 |
§ 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 | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 22 | 9 | 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; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talogy 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