§ The result
4 points separate Cegid and Willo.
Cegid (ATS-integrated) edges Willo (Video interview) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 45 to 41. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Cegid, with 1 level: Cegid is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Willo on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 50, Willo 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Cegid 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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Willo under Video interview 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 Willo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | FR | GB |
| Founded | 1983 | 2018 |
§ 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 · Willo 38
2.4 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Willo 25
1.1 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Willo 62
0.8 weighted points to Willo
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Willo 54
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Willo 36
0.5 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · Willo 53
0.3 weighted points to Cegid
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Willo.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 53 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 36 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 41 (F) | +4 | +4.0 |
§ 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 | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 5 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo last reviewed
- June 7, 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