§ The result
Bullhorn leads Factorial by 8 points.
Inside the ATS-integrated cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Bullhorn on 54 and Factorial on 46, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Bullhorn, with 1 level: Bullhorn is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Factorial on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Bullhorn 58, Factorial 25) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 65% of the weighted advantage Bullhorn holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Bullhorn
Bullhorn is a cloud-based applicant tracking system and CRM for staffing and recruiting agencies, with AI features (Bullhorn Copilot/Amplify, automation, and Textkernel-powered search and match) that source, screen, and rank candidates against jobs.
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
Bullhorn 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 | Bullhorn | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 1999 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Bullhorn 58 · Factorial 25
5.9 weighted points to Bullhorn
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Bullhorn 62 · Factorial 52
2.0 weighted points to Bullhorn
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Bullhorn 35 · Factorial 48
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Bullhorn 38 · Factorial 35
0.4 weighted points to Bullhorn
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Bullhorn 60 · Factorial 57
0.4 weighted points to Bullhorn
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Bullhorn 60 · Factorial 58
0.2 weighted points to Bullhorn
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Bullhorn minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Bullhorn | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 25 | +33 | +5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 46 (F) | +8 | +7.5 |
§ 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 | Bullhorn | 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% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 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% | 15 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Bullhorn has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Bullhorn, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Bullhorn 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