§ The result
Ashby leads Factorial by 10 points.
Ashby sits 10 points above Factorial under rubric v1.0, 56 against 46, with both filed under ATS-integrated. Factorial takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Ashby, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 62, Factorial 25 — and at an 18% weight it carries 62% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
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
Ashby and Factorial are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ashby | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Factorial 25
6.7 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Factorial 52
2.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Factorial 35
1.1 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Factorial 48
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Factorial 58
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Factorial 57
0.1 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 25 | +37 | +6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 46 (F) | +10 | +10.1 |
§ 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 | Ashby | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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