§ 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.
Vendor profile
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.
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
Darwinbox and Factorial are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| 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.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Factorial 52
1.6 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Factorial 48
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Factorial 35
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Factorial 25
0.5 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Factorial 58
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Factorial 57
0.1 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.
| 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% | 46 (F) | 46 (F) | - | -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.
§ Where next