§ The result
1 point separates Factorial and hackajob.
Factorial holds a 1-point edge over hackajob under rubric v1.0, 46 to 45, across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. hackajob takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 4 for Factorial, whose share includes Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — hackajob takes Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20%, Factorial 52 to hackajob 60, 91% of the weighted advantage hackajob holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Post-Market Monitoring, Factorial 48 to hackajob 38.
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
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, hackajob 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 | hackajob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · hackajob 60
1.6 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · hackajob 38
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · hackajob 20
0.9 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · hackajob 32
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · hackajob 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · hackajob 58
0.1 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.7 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 +1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus hackajob.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | hackajob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 45 (F) | +1 | +1.2 |
§ 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 | hackajob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 76 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- hackajob 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