§ The result
HackerRank leads Factorial by 9 points.
HackerRank scores 55 and Factorial 46 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of HackerRank, with 1 level: HackerRank is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Factorial on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 25, HackerRank 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 79% of the weighted advantage HackerRank holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
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
HackerRank
HackerRank is a technical skills assessment platform for developer hiring that uses coding tests, interviews, and AI-based features (question generation, ML plagiarism/AI-code detection, and image-analysis proctoring) to evaluate candidates.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HackerRank under Assessment 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. Only HackerRank is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · HackerRank 68
7.7 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · HackerRank 60
1.6 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · HackerRank 45
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · HackerRank 55
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · HackerRank 60
0.2 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · HackerRank 62
0.2 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 68 | -43 | -7.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 55 (F) | -9 | -9.1 |
§ 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 | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources 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 | 14 | 4 | 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; HackerRank has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerRank 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