§ The result
Factorial leads JobDiva on all 7 criteria.
Factorial finishes 17 points clear of JobDiva inside the ATS-integrated cohort under rubric v1.0: 46 against 29. Factorial takes all 7 criteria and JobDiva none of them; the nearest contest is Bias Audit Transparency, Factorial 25 to JobDiva 15. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Factorial 52, JobDiva 28, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 28% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 7 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
JobDiva
JobDiva is an all-in-one ATS, CRM, onboarding, back-office and VMS-synchronization platform for staffing agencies, with AI features including DivaMatch candidate-to-job scoring, AI-enhanced matching and semantic search, resume harvesting and generative outreach.
§ The record
Factorial and JobDiva are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Factorial is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Factorial | JobDiva |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2003 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · JobDiva 28
4.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · JobDiva 38
2.9 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · JobDiva 40
2.2 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · JobDiva 30
2.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · JobDiva 22
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · JobDiva 15
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · JobDiva 42
1.4 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +17.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +17 beside that +17.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus JobDiva.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | JobDiva | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 28 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 15 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 22 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 38 | +19 | +2.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 29 (F) | +17 | +17.2 |
§ 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 | JobDiva | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 20 | 8 | 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; JobDiva has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 28 for JobDiva, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- JobDiva 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