§ The result
4 points separate Factorial and Coderbyte.
Factorial holds a 4-point edge over Coderbyte under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42, across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Coderbyte takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Factorial, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Coderbyte 44, Factorial 52, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Coderbyte
Coderbyte is a technical hiring platform offering coding assessments with automated and AI grading of challenges and take-home projects, live coding interviews, and AI screening that grades resumes against job-description criteria and runs agentic phone screens.
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
Coderbyte 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 Coderbyte is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Coderbyte | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 2012 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Coderbyte 44 · Factorial 52
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · Factorial 48
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · Factorial 25
0.9 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · Factorial 35
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · Factorial 58
0.2 weighted points to Coderbyte
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · Factorial 57
0.1 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 46 (F) | -4 | -3.8 |
§ 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 | Coderbyte | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Coderbyte sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte last reviewed
- September 25, 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