§ The result
Findem leads Factorial by 12 points.
Findem, filed under Sourcing, comes out 12 points above Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated: 58 against 46 under rubric v1.0. Findem leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Factorial leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Findem 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 85% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Findem under Candidate sourcing 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 | Factorial | Findem |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Findem 83
10.4 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Findem 58
1.2 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Findem 42
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Findem 38
0.4 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Findem 60
0.2 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Findem 58
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Findem.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Findem | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 83 | -58 | -10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 58 (F) | -12 | -11.4 |
§ 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 | Factorial | Findem | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 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