§ The result
Factorial leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Factorial sits 13 points above Emi under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 33 — with Factorial filed under ATS-integrated and Emi under Screening. Factorial takes all 7 criteria and Emi none of them; the nearest contest is Bias Audit Transparency, Emi 18 to Factorial 25. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 28, Factorial 52, 20% weight), is only 35% of the weighted advantage Factorial builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Emi
Emi runs AI agents on WhatsApp, SMS and Messenger that screen and score frontline job applicants against employer-set criteria, schedule interviews, and collect hiring documents and check them against Mexican government databases.
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
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Factorial 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.
| Record | Emi | Factorial |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | AR | ES |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Factorial 52
4.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Factorial 57
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Factorial 58
1.7 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Factorial 48
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Factorial 35
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Factorial 25
1.3 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Factorial 60
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -13.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Factorial.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Factorial | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 52 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 25 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 46 (F) | -13 | -13.7 |
§ 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 | Emi | 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% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 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 a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 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 Emi 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 Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi 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