§ The result
3 points separate Factorial and CodeSignal.
Factorial holds a 3-point edge over CodeSignal under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43, across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. CodeSignal takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for Factorial, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to CodeSignal — CodeSignal 45, Factorial 25, on an 18% weight — which is 96% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
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
CodeSignal 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 CodeSignal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Factorial 25
3.6 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Factorial 52
2.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Factorial 35
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Factorial 48
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Factorial 57
1.1 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Factorial 58
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 52 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 25 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 46 (F) | -3 | -3.2 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal 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