§ The result
iMocha leads Factorial on 6 of the 7 criteria.
iMocha, filed under Assessment, comes out 10 points above Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated: 56 against 46 under rubric v1.0. Factorial is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: iMocha takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is FRIA Support, Factorial 35 to iMocha 38. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Factorial 25, iMocha 44, 18% weight), is only 36% of the weighted advantage iMocha builds 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
iMocha
iMocha is an AI-powered skills assessment and skills-intelligence platform that evaluates candidates and employees across technical, cognitive, coding, and soft skills for hiring and internal talent management, including AI-based coding simulators and an AI video interviewer (Tara).
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, iMocha 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 iMocha is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | iMocha |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | IN |
| Founded | 2016 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · iMocha 44
3.4 weighted points to iMocha
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · iMocha 68
3.2 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · iMocha 66
1.3 weighted points to iMocha
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · iMocha 64
0.7 weighted points to iMocha
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · iMocha 66
0.5 weighted points to iMocha
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · iMocha 38
0.4 weighted points to iMocha
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus iMocha.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | iMocha | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 68 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 44 | -19 | -3.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 48 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 66 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -9.6 |
§ 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 | iMocha | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 5 | 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; iMocha has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for iMocha sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
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 iMocha, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iMocha 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