§ The result
3 points separate X0PA AI and Cegid.
X0PA AI (Assessment) edges Cegid (ATS-integrated) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45. Cegid takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Customer Documentation among them, against 4 for X0PA AI, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cegid 30, X0PA AI 44) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 66% of the weighted advantage X0PA AI holds across the 4 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
X0PA AI
X0PA AI is a Singapore-based B2B AI recruitment platform (applicant tracking system) that sources, screens, scores, and ranks candidates using proprietary predictive-scoring models (BRIQ Score and Suitability Score) plus the X0PA ROOM video-interview/assessment product, marketed around bias-reduced, "responsible and explainable" AI hiring.
§ The record
Cegid is filed under ATS-integrated AI, X0PA AI under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only X0PA AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cegid | X0PA AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | FR | SG |
| Founded | 1983 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cegid 30 · X0PA AI 44
2.5 weighted points to X0PA AI
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cegid 32 · X0PA AI 38
0.9 weighted points to X0PA AI
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cegid 55 · X0PA AI 57
0.2 weighted points to X0PA AI
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cegid 62 · X0PA AI 60
0.2 weighted points to Cegid
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cegid 55 · X0PA AI 56
0.1 weighted points to X0PA AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cegid minus X0PA AI.
| Category | Weight | Cegid | X0PA AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 44 | -14 | -2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 48 (F) | -3 | -3.6 |
§ 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 | X0PA AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources 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; X0PA AI has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for X0PA AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for Cegid, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for X0PA AI, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cegid last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- X0PA AI 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