§ The result
Arctic Shores and Factorial tie at 46.
Arctic Shores, filed under Assessment, and Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, tie at 46 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Arctic Shores leads 2 of the 7 criteria and Factorial 3, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Post-Market Monitoring is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 30, Factorial 48 — and at a 12% weight it carries 77% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
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
Arctic Shores 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 Arctic Shores is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | ES |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Factorial 48
2.2 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Factorial 25
1.8 weighted points to Arctic Shores
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Factorial 52
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Factorial 60
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Factorial 58
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 60 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 46 (F) | - | -0.7 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 6 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores 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