Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Darwinbox vs Factorial
Darwinbox
Darwinbox is an enterprise HCM suite whose recruitment module uses Darwinbox Sense AI (now sold inside its Cortex agent platform) to parse resumes, stack-rank and recommend candidates with stated fit reasoning, run screening and shortlisting agents, and give candidates an assistant for job matching, interview details and FAQs.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Darwinbox and Factorial tie at 46.
Darwinbox and Factorial tie at 46 under rubric v1.0 inside the ATS-integrated cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Darwinbox leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Factorial 4, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Darwinbox (Darwinbox 60, Factorial 52), 70% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Post-Market Monitoring, Darwinbox 35 to Factorial 48.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Darwinbox3
- Factorial4
- Widest raw gap
- Post-Market Monitoring35 vs 48
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Darwinbox and Factorial are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Darwinbox | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | IN | ES |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight31% of the movement so far
Darwinbox60Factorial521.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight61% of the movement so far
Darwinbox35Factorial481.6 weighted points to Factorial
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight75% of the movement so far
Darwinbox30Factorial350.8 weighted points to Factorial
- 4
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight86% of the movement so far
Darwinbox28Factorial250.5 weighted points to Darwinbox
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight93% of the movement so far
Darwinbox55Factorial580.4 weighted points to Factorial
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
Darwinbox57Factorial600.2 weighted points to Factorial
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Darwinbox58Factorial570.1 weighted points to Darwinbox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Factorial, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 46F | - | -0.6 |
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 | Darwinbox | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 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 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox 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.