§ The result
Cegid and Testlify tie at 45.
Cegid, filed under ATS-integrated, and Testlify, filed under Assessment, tie at 45 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Cegid leads 1 of the 7 criteria and Testlify 3, with 3 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cegid 50, Testlify 52 — and at a 20% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Testlify 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
Testlify
Testlify is a skills-assessment and AI-interviewing platform that ranks candidates on a scored leaderboard from pre-built or AI-generated tests, with an AI résumé screener, AI-scored video, voice and chat interviews, and AI-assisted proctoring.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Testlify 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 Testlify is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Testlify |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Testlify 52
0.4 weighted points to Testlify
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Testlify 42
0.2 weighted points to Testlify
8% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Testlify 60
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Testlify 33
0.1 weighted points to Testlify
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 1.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Testlify.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Testlify | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 45 (F) | - | -0.6 |
§ 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 | Testlify | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 5 | 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 | 31 | 5 | 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; Testlify has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 75 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Testlify, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Testlify 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