§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI leads Cegid by 11 points.
Rubric v1.0 scores the ATS-integrated entries Workday Recruiting AI and Cegid at 56 and 45, a gap of 11 points. Workday Recruiting AI leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cegid leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 30, Workday Recruiting AI 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI 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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Cegid and Workday Recruiting AI are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cegid is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Cegid | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 1983 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
5.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cegid 50 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
4.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
1.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cegid 40 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.6 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.9 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 -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 60 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 65 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 65 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 56 (F) | -11 | -10.7 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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