§ The result
Tribepad leads Cegid by 11 points.
Rubric v1.0 scores the ATS-integrated entries Tribepad and Cegid at 56 and 45, a gap of 11 points. Cegid takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 5 for Tribepad, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 30, Tribepad 78) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Tribepad holds across the 5 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
Tribepad
Tribepad is a UK applicant tracking system whose built-in Sidekick AI assistant scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted skills and generates candidate summaries, SWOT analyses, job descriptions, salary suggestions and interview questions.
§ The record
Cegid and Tribepad are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Cegid | Tribepad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | GB |
| Founded | 1983 | 2008 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Tribepad 78
8.6 weighted points to Tribepad
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Tribepad 54
1.7 weighted points to Tribepad
20% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Tribepad 56
1.2 weighted points to Tribepad
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Tribepad 58
0.4 weighted points to Tribepad
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Tribepad 58
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Tribepad 30
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Tribepad 56
0.1 weighted points to Tribepad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.7 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 -11.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Tribepad.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Tribepad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 56 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 78 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 56 (F) | -11 | -11.4 |
§ 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 | Tribepad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 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; Tribepad has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tribepad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Tribepad, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tribepad 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