Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Cezanne Recruitment vs Personio
Cezanne Recruitment
Cezanne Recruitment (formerly Occupop) is an applicant tracking system for SMEs that handles job posting, candidate management and interview scheduling. In its Recruitment PLUS+ tier it uses AI to score each CV from 0 to 100 against the job description, alongside weighted screening-question scores, knockout filters and optional AI anonymisation of CVs for hiring-manager review.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
1 point separates Cezanne Recruitment and Personio.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Cezanne Recruitment edges Personio by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 41 to 40. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Cezanne Recruitment and Personio, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Cezanne Recruitment holds, headed by Human Oversight Design, settle the total. Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cezanne Recruitment 58, Personio 48 — and at a 12% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage Cezanne Recruitment holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Cezanne Recruitment3
- Personio3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Human Oversight Design58 vs 48
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Human Oversight Design12% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Cezanne Recruitment and Personio are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Cezanne Recruitment | Personio |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | DE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2015 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Human Oversight Design
12% weight40% of the movement so far
Cezanne Recruitment58Personio481.2 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
- 2
Customer Documentation
8% weight58% of the movement so far
Cezanne Recruitment57Personio500.6 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight74% of the movement so far
Cezanne Recruitment44Personio480.5 weighted points to Personio
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight84% of the movement so far
Cezanne Recruitment28Personio300.3 weighted points to Personio
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight94% of the movement so far
Cezanne Recruitment54Personio520.3 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
- 6
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight100% of the movement so far
Cezanne Recruitment24Personio250.2 weighted points to Personio
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cezanne Recruitment minus Personio, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Cezanne Recruitment | Personio | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 24 | 25 | -1 | -0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 40F | +1 | +1.1 |
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 | Cezanne Recruitment | Personio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cezanne Recruitment has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Personio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Cezanne Recruitment, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Personio, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cezanne Recruitment last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 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.