§ The result
Checkr leads Factorial by 8 points.
Checkr scores 54 and Factorial 46 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Screening and ATS-integrated cohorts. Checkr leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Factorial leads 1, including FRIA Support. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Checkr 70, Factorial 52) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 45% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
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
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Factorial under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Checkr | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 2014 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Factorial 52
3.6 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Factorial 25
1.8 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Factorial 58
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Factorial 57
0.8 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Factorial 60
0.6 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Factorial 35
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Factorial 48
0.2 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 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 Checkr minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 52 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| 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 | Checkr | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 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 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr 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