§ The result
iCIMS leads Factorial by 9 points.
iCIMS finishes 9 points ahead of Factorial under rubric v1.0, 55 to 46, both scored as ATS-integrated entries. iCIMS leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Factorial leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, iCIMS 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 81% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 4 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
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
§ The record
Factorial and iCIMS are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Factorial | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2000 |
§ 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 · iCIMS 68
7.7 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · iCIMS 58
1.2 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · iCIMS 42
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · iCIMS 38
0.4 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · iCIMS 62
0.2 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · iCIMS 56
0.1 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.7 — 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 -8.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus iCIMS.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 68 | -43 | -7.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 55 (F) | -9 | -8.7 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS 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