§ The result
3 points separate Cegid and Tengai.
Cegid holds a 3-point edge over Tengai under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42, across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Cegid leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Tengai leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Cegid 40, Tengai 33) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Cegid 50, Tengai 45), the second being 27% 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
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Tengai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Tengai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | SE |
| Founded | 1983 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Tengai 45
1.0 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Tengai 33
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Tengai 50
0.8 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Tengai 28
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Tengai 55
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Tengai 33
0.5 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Tengai 58
0.4 weighted points to Tengai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.7 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 +2.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 42 (F) | +3 | +2.9 |
§ 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 | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 37 | 5 | Sources 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; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tengai 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 Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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