§ The result
3 points separate Factorial and HighMatch.
Factorial holds a 3-point edge over HighMatch under rubric v1.0, 46 to 43, across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Factorial leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while HighMatch leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Factorial 48, HighMatch 40) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Factorial 52, HighMatch 45), the second being 35% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 5 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
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HighMatch 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 HighMatch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | HighMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · HighMatch 45
1.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · HighMatch 40
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · HighMatch 30
0.9 weighted points to HighMatch
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · HighMatch 30
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · HighMatch 52
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · HighMatch 60
0.2 weighted points to HighMatch
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · HighMatch 58
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus HighMatch.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | HighMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 43 (F) | +3 | +2.9 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 31 | 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; HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HighMatch 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