HomeVendorsDayforce
Profile · Vendor·ATS-integratedScreening

Dayforce

Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and analytics.

HireAIScore rates Dayforce 57 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed August 2, 2026. Dayforce ranks 5 of 47 vendors rated in ATS-integrated AI, against a category average of 49. That score is drawn from 34 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Dayforce — 28 with a cited source, 6 recording that nothing was located.

§ 01 - Company facts

Legal name
Dayforce, Inc. (formerly Ceridian HCM Holding Inc.)
Founded
1992
Headquarters
United States · US
Pricing tier
Enterprise
Market side
Employer-side (AEDT)
Categories
ATS-integratedScreening
Website
dayforce.com

These are company details, not findings. They are editable by a verified representative and carry no weight in the score, which is built only from the cited evidence below.

§ 02 - Score breakdown

§ Score breakdown

Category scoring

Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.

  1. 01

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Weight 20%

    74

    +14.8 · category avg 53

  2. 02

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Weight 18%

    42

    +7.6 · category avg 45

  3. 03

    FRIA Support

    Weight 15%

    40

    +6.0 · category avg 33

  4. 04

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Weight 15%

    63

    +9.4 · category avg 56

  5. 05

    Human Oversight Design

    Weight 12%

    68

    +8.2 · category avg 57

  6. 06

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Weight 12%

    47

    +5.6 · category avg 42

  7. 07

    Customer Documentation

    Weight 8%

    70

    +5.6 · category avg 59

Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 47 ATS-integrated AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.

Total weighted score: 57.2(rounded to 57 for display)

§ 03 - Strongest · weakest

Strongest category

Article 11 Technical Documentation

Raw score 74 · contributes 14.8 to total.

74 against a 53 category average

Weakest category

FRIA Support

Raw score 40 · contributes 6.0 to total.

40 against a 33 category average

§ 04 - Cited evidence

Download diligence record→

§ Evidence

Cited per category

Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence.

Evidence ledger

Items
34
Documentation
20
Audit report
1
Public statement
7
Absence
6
With a source URL
28 of 34
Source hostnames
2
Fewest items
4
FRIA Support

These figures measure how thoroughly Dayforce was reviewed, not how Dayforce performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.

Article 11 Technical Documentation

5 items74

Bias Audit Transparency

5 items42
  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Checkpoint 9 of the AI Governance Cycle states that for higher-risk AI models Dayforce commissions independent bias and fairness audits to assess adverse or disparate impact, but names no auditor, date, or published result.

    https://www.dayforce.com/blog/dayforce-ai-governance-cycle

  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    The AI Compliance page FAQ says Dayforce uses a repeatable, audited approach with pre- and post-release testing 'along with third-party audits for select features', without identifying which features or publishing any report.

    https://www.dayforce.com/how-we-help/dayforce/leverage-ai-for-efficiency/ai-compliance

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Documentation confirms that when Dayforce determines a candidate lives in New York City, from city or ZIP code, it shows a 'Restricted' icon instead of a letter grade to comply with New York City legal requirements - i.e. the AEDT is disabled in NYC rather than bias-audited.

    https://help.dayforce.com/r/documents/Recruiting-Guide/View-Candidate-Grades

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Documented bias controls state that candidate names are removed from applications before screening and that historical training data covers all candidates rather than only those hired, and that the scoring factors cannot be modified by customers.

    https://help.dayforce.com/r/documents/Recruiting-Guide/How-Candidate-Grades-Are-Determined

  • AbsenceCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    No NYC Local Law 144 bias audit summary, and no report from BABL AI, DCI, ORCAA, Warden AI, Holistic AI, Credo AI, ConductorAI or any academic auditor, was found on dayforce.com (full sitemap scan), in the ESG reporting hub, in the newsroom, or in the public help portal.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

FRIA Support

4 items40

Data Governance Disclosure

5 items63

Human Oversight Design

4 items68

Post-Market Monitoring

5 items47
  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    A public vulnerability disclosure page, last updated 12 May 2025, setting out scope, researcher guidelines and a reporting form for security issues in the Dayforce HCM platform.

    https://www.dayforce.com/vulnerability-disclosure

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Publishes a direct security contact, cybersecurity@dayforce.com, for questions about the Dayforce information security program.

    https://www.dayforce.com/who-we-are/information-security

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Reports a HackerOne bug bounty program, a SafeBreach control attestation program using real-world attack simulation, quarterly cybersecurity reporting to the board Audit Committee, and post-release AI reviews by an internal cross-functional working group.

    https://www.dayforce.com/Ceridian/media/documents/esg%20reporting%20hub/Dayforce-2025-Sustainability-Report-Final.pdf

  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Describes ongoing post-deployment monitoring for model drift with region-specific compliance controls and re-entry into the governance cycle when behaviour changes materially, but no external monitoring output is published.

    https://www.dayforce.com/blog/dayforce-ai-governance-cycle

  • AbsenceCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    No public status or incident page exists (status.dayforce.com does not resolve in DNS), and no AI-specific incident channel, model-update changelog or continuous fairness-monitoring dashboard was found on dayforce.com or the public help portal; product release notes exist per version in the help portal but are general feature notes rather than AI model-change records.

    Have a URL that disputes this?→

Customer Documentation

6 items70

§ 05 - Editorial notes

Company overview

Dayforce, Inc. is a global HCM vendor headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota with a co-headquarters in Toronto, Ontario. The company was founded as Ceridian in 1992, acquired the Dayforce cloud HCM product in 2012, and rebranded company-wide to Dayforce in 2024; it was taken private by Thoma Bravo affiliates on 4 February 2026 and delisted from the NYSE and TSX. Its recruiting-relevant AI includes candidate grading (an AI model that assigns letter grades and a weighted 'report card' to external applicants), AI-assisted screening and application summarization, AI-generated job descriptions, and AI agents across the wider suite. In February 2026 Dayforce announced ISO/IEC 42001 certification and NIST AI RMF attestation, and it operates an external AI Ethics Council launched in September 2025 whose members include Miranda Bogen (CDT AI Governance Lab), Merve Hickok (AIethicist.org), and Dr. Nicol Turner Lee.

Regulatory exposure

Dayforce candidate grading is squarely a high-risk employment AI system under EU AI Act Annex III and an automated employment decision tool under NYC Local Law 144 in substance, so Dayforce is a provider and its customers are deployers. Notably, Dayforce does not publish an LL 144 bias audit; instead its product suppresses grades entirely for candidates identified as residing in New York City (a 'Restricted' icon replaces the letter grade), which is compliance by avoidance rather than by audit. Illinois AIVI and HB 3773 and the Colorado AI Act create disclosure and impact-assessment duties that Dayforce addresses only through a one-line instruction telling administrators to add an AI disclosure to job descriptions 'if required in your jurisdiction'. The company claims alignment with GDPR, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and the EU AI Act and says it commissions independent bias and fairness audits for higher-risk models, but no audit report, certificate, or auditor name is published, and no Article 27 FRIA template or deployer pack exists. Security and privacy certifications (ISO 27001/27017/27018/27701, SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type 2, NIST 800-171) are real but released only through a gated customer Due Diligence Portal.

Path to a higher score

The single highest-value move is to publish the artifacts Dayforce already says it holds: the ISO/IEC 42001 certificate and scope statement, the NIST AI RMF attestation letter, and at least a redacted summary of the independent bias and fairness audits of candidate grading, naming the auditor, date, sample size, and impact-ratio results by race and sex. Second, replace the NYC grade-suppression workaround with a published Local Law 144 bias audit so the feature can be used in New York City with transparency rather than switched off. Third, publish the internal 'explainability factsheets' referenced in the AI Governance Cycle post as public model cards for candidate grading and skills inference, and add an EU AI Act deployer pack containing an Article 27 FRIA template, an Article 13 instructions-for-use document, and per-jurisdiction disclosure templates. Finally, ungate the DPA and certification package, and stand up a public status/incident and AI model-change channel so post-market monitoring is externally observable rather than described only in prose.

§ Regulatory frame

What applies to ats-integrated ai.

Ranking features are inside EU AI Act Annex III §4 (high-risk) and inside NYC Local Law 144 when they affect NYC-based candidates. Customers should treat the AI surface as a distinct deployer-FRIA scope from the rest of the ATS.

Keep reading

All ats-integrated vendors→How this score is built→Annex IV section-by-section: what AI hiring vendors must document→What makes a defensible NYC LL 144 bias audit→

§ Compare

Build any comparison→

Dayforce against its nearest-scoring peers.

In ATS-integrated AI.

§ Others rated in ATS-integrated AI

All ats-integrated vendors→

Ranked 5 of 47 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.

  1. 02Eightfold AI64D
  2. 03SmartRecruiters62D
  3. 04Alva Labs61D
  4. 05DayforceThis profile57F
  5. 06Pinpoint57F
  6. 07Juicebox (PeopleGPT)57F

Conflicts of interest

No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.

Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.