§ The result
Factorial leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Factorial finishes 16 points clear of Cognisess under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 30 — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Factorial leads every one of the 7 criteria, Cognisess none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Cognisess 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 (Cognisess 25, Factorial 52, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 33% of the weighted points Factorial gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
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
Cognisess 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 Cognisess is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | ES |
| Founded | 2011 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Factorial 52
5.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 47% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Factorial 35
2.3 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Factorial 57
2.3 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Factorial 58
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Factorial 48
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Factorial 60
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Factorial 25
0.9 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -16.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 52 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 35 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 57 | -15 | -2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 48 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 46 (F) | -16 | -16.2 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | 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 | — | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 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 Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess 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