§ The result
HiPeople leads Factorial on 6 of the 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 15 points clear of Factorial under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 46 (F) — across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. HiPeople leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Factorial is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 HiPeople leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Factorial 57 to HiPeople 58. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 25, HiPeople 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 70% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 6 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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HiPeople 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 HiPeople is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | DE |
| Founded | 2016 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · HiPeople 84
10.6 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · HiPeople 62
2.0 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · HiPeople 60
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · HiPeople 62
0.5 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · HiPeople 66
0.5 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · HiPeople 58
0.1 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -15.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus HiPeople.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 84 | -59 | -10.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 66 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 61 (D) | -15 | -15.2 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople 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