Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Factorial vs HiBob
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Factorial and HiBob tie at 46.
Factorial and HiBob tie at 46 under rubric v1.0 inside the ATS-integrated cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Factorial leads 2 of the 7 criteria and HiBob 3, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 25, HiBob 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 88% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Factorial2
- HiBob3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency25 vs 20
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Factorial and HiBob are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Factorial | HiBob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2015 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight39% of the movement so far
Factorial25HiBob200.9 weighted points to Factorial
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight65% of the movement so far
Factorial52HiBob550.6 weighted points to HiBob
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Factorial58HiBob630.6 weighted points to HiBob
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight97% of the movement so far
Factorial48HiBob470.1 weighted points to Factorial
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Factorial60HiBob610.1 weighted points to HiBob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -0.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus HiBob, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | HiBob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 63 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 47 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 61 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46F | 46F | - | -0.3 |
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 | HiBob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 29 | 7 | 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; HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiBob 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.