§ The result
Hogan Assessments takes the total, Factorial takes more of the criteria.
Hogan Assessments holds a 1-point edge over Factorial under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46, across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Factorial leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Hogan Assessments, yet Hogan Assessments takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Hogan Assessments 44 — and at an 18% weight it carries 92% of the weighted advantage Hogan Assessments holds across the 3 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
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Hogan Assessments under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Hogan Assessments is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Hogan Assessments |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 1987 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Hogan Assessments 44
3.4 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Hogan Assessments 40
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Hogan Assessments 52
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Hogan Assessments 52
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Hogan Assessments 50
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Hogan Assessments 62
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Hogan Assessments 36
0.1 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 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 -0.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Hogan Assessments.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Hogan Assessments | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 44 | -19 | -3.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 47 (F) | -1 | -0.9 |
§ 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 | Hogan Assessments | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 20 | 6 | 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; Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hogan Assessments last reviewed
- July 17, 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