§ The result
Factorial leads Canditech on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Canditech, filed under Assessment, on 39, 7 points apart. Canditech is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Factorial takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Customer Documentation, Canditech 58 to Factorial 60. Factorial takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Canditech 37, Factorial 52), which is 42% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, Canditech 32 to Factorial 48.
Vendor profile
Canditech
Canditech is a skills-assessment and job-simulation platform that screens candidates with work-sample tests, technical and soft-skill assessments, and one-way video interviews, using AI agents to auto-score open-text and video responses.
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
Canditech 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 Canditech is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Canditech | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | IL | ES |
| Founded | 2019 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Canditech 37 · Factorial 52
3.0 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Canditech 32 · Factorial 48
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Canditech 30 · Factorial 35
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Canditech 52 · Factorial 57
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Canditech 53 · Factorial 58
0.6 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Canditech 58 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 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 Canditech minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Canditech | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 37 | 52 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 48 | -16 | -1.9 |
| 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 | Canditech | 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% | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Canditech has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Canditech, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Canditech last reviewed
- July 17, 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