§ The result
4 points separate Factorial and Draup.
Factorial (ATS-integrated) edges Draup (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Factorial, with 1 level: Factorial is ahead on Post-Market Monitoring and Draup on Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, is both the widest raw gap (Draup 28, Factorial 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 45% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Factorial under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Draup | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | ES |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Factorial 48
2.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Factorial 35
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Factorial 25
1.4 weighted points to Draup
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Factorial 52
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Factorial 57
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Factorial 60
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 48 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 46 (F) | -4 | -4.0 |
§ 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 | Draup | Factorial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources 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% | 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% | 2 | 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% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 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; some documentation or audit rows for Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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