§ The result
Alva Labs leads Factorial on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Alva Labs (Assessment) opens a 15-point lead on Factorial (ATS-integrated), 61 (D) to 46 (F). Alva Labs leads every one of the 7 criteria, Factorial none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Alva Labs 38 to Factorial 35. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 58, Factorial 25 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Alva Labs
Alva Labs sells a science-backed hiring platform whose core is a suite of proprietary psychometric assessments - an adaptive logic (general mental ability) test, a Five-Factor Model personality test, and coding tests - wrapped in candidate management, CV screening, and structured-interview tooling.
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
Alva Labs 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, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Alva Labs is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | SE | ES |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Factorial 25
5.9 weighted points to Alva Labs
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Factorial 52
5.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Factorial 57
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Factorial 60
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Factorial 58
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Factorial 48
0.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Factorial 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +15.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 52 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 25 | +33 | +5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 57 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 46 (F) | +15 | +15.0 |
§ 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 | Alva Labs | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 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