§ The result
Cegid leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Cegid scores 45 and Turing 36 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Cegid is ahead of Turing on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at Cegid 30 to Turing 28. Customer Documentation is the widest raw gap (Cegid 62, Turing 48) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (Cegid 55, Turing 44), 19% of the weighted advantage Cegid builds across the 7 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
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Turing under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 19% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Turing 44
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Turing 42
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Turing 27
1.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Turing 45
1.2 weighted points to Cegid
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Turing 48
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Turing 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Turing 28
0.4 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 45 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 27 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 36 (F) | +9 | +8.5 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 7 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing 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