§ The result
2 points separate Teamtailor and Cegid.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Teamtailor edges Cegid by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 45. The 7 criteria split 3 to 1 in favour of Teamtailor, with 3 level: Teamtailor is ahead on FRIA Support and Cegid on Human Oversight Design. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 32, Teamtailor 42 — and at a 15% weight it carries 68% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 3 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
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
§ The record
Cegid and Teamtailor are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | SE |
| Founded | 1983 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Teamtailor 42
1.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Teamtailor 58
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Teamtailor 42
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Teamtailor 54
0.1 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -2.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 47 (F) | -2 | -2.1 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 14 | 6 | 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; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
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 Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor 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