§ The result
Cornerstone OnDemand leads Factorial by 10 points.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Cornerstone OnDemand and Factorial come out 56 and 46 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Cornerstone OnDemand. Cornerstone OnDemand leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Factorial leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 2 are level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cornerstone OnDemand 58, Factorial 25) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 57% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
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
Cornerstone OnDemand and Factorial are both filed 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. Only Cornerstone OnDemand is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cornerstone OnDemand | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 1999 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cornerstone OnDemand 58 · Factorial 25
5.9 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cornerstone OnDemand 72 · Factorial 52
4.0 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cornerstone OnDemand 60 · Factorial 57
0.4 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cornerstone OnDemand 55 · Factorial 58
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cornerstone OnDemand 45 · Factorial 48
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +9.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cornerstone OnDemand minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Cornerstone OnDemand | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 72 | 52 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 25 | +33 | +5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 46 (F) | +10 | +9.7 |
§ 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 | Cornerstone OnDemand | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 2 | 1 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Cornerstone OnDemand 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; some documentation or audit rows for Cornerstone OnDemand sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cornerstone OnDemand 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