§ The result
Factorial leads Adaface on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Adaface, filed under Assessment, on 39, 7 points apart. Factorial takes all 7 criteria from Adaface without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Customer Documentation, Adaface 58 to Factorial 60. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Adaface 38, Factorial 52, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Adaface
Adaface runs chatbot-led 'conversational' skills tests for 500+ roles that score candidates automatically as pass, borderline pass or fail on benchmarked scorecards, backed by webcam, screen and IP proctoring and an AI résumé parser.
Vendor profile
Factorial
Factorial is a Barcelona-based all-in-one HR, finance and IT platform for small and mid-sized businesses. Its applicant tracking system has optional AI matching, which shows a percentage fit for applicants it recommends interviewing, plus CV summaries, AI-written job posts and AI Calls, where a voice agent phone-screens candidates and gives each a match label that can move them to the next stage automatically.
§ The record
Adaface is filed under Assessment AI, Factorial under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Adaface is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Adaface | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Low |
| Headquarters | SG | ES |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Adaface 38 · Factorial 52
2.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Adaface 38 · Factorial 48
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Adaface 50 · Factorial 58
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Adaface 30 · Factorial 35
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Adaface 52 · Factorial 57
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Adaface 22 · Factorial 25
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Adaface 58 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Adaface minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Adaface | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 25 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 46 (F) | -7 | -7.2 |
§ 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 | Adaface | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Adaface has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Adaface, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Adaface last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 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