§ The result
Factorial leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the ATS-integrated entries Factorial and Ceipal at 46 and 35, a gap of 11 points. Factorial leads every one of the 7 criteria, Ceipal none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Ceipal 20 to Factorial 25. The advantage Factorial holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Ceipal 30, Factorial 52, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 38% of the weighted points Factorial gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Ceipal
AI-powered applicant tracking and workforce-management platform for staffing firms that sources, matches, and ranks candidates on a 1-to-100 scale against job requirements.
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
Ceipal and Factorial are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Factorial is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ceipal | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Factorial 52
4.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Factorial 57
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · Factorial 35
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Factorial 58
1.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Factorial 48
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Factorial 25
0.9 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Factorial 60
0.6 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 57 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 58 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 60 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 46 (F) | -11 | -11.7 |
§ 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 | Ceipal | 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% | 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% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal 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