§ The result
1 point separates Gloat and Factorial.
Gloat holds a 1-point edge over Factorial under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46, across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Gloat: Gloat is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Factorial on FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Gloat 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Gloat 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
Gloat
Gloat is an AI-powered internal talent marketplace and "agentic HR" platform that matches an employer's existing employees to internal job openings, gigs, projects, mentorships, and learning based on inferred skills and career goals.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Gloat under Candidate sourcing 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. Only Gloat is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Gloat |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Gloat 38
2.3 weighted points to Gloat
15% weight · 59% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Gloat 28
1.1 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Gloat 48
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Gloat 42
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Gloat 62
0.5 weighted points to Gloat
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Gloat 62
0.2 weighted points to Gloat
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Gloat 58
0.1 weighted points to Gloat
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 5.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Gloat.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Gloat | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 47 (F) | -1 | -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 | Factorial | Gloat | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Gloat has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for Gloat, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Gloat last reviewed
- August 2, 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