§ The result
Codility leads Factorial on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Codility, filed under Assessment, finishes on 54 and Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, on 46, 8 points apart. Factorial is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Codility takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Post-Market Monitoring, Codility 50 to Factorial 48. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Codility 45, Factorial 25 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Codility holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Codility
Codility is a technical/coding assessment platform that screens and interviews software engineers with work-sample coding tests, live technical interviews, and integrity tooling including plagiarism and AI-use detection.
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
Codility 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 Codility is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Codility | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | ES |
| Founded | 2009 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Factorial 25
3.6 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Factorial 52
1.6 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Factorial 35
1.1 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Factorial 58
0.5 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Factorial 60
0.5 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Factorial 48
0.2 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.4 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 +7.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 25 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 46 (F) | +8 | +7.4 |
§ 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 | Codility | 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% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 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 Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility 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