§ The result
3 points separate Jobma and Factorial.
Jobma holds a 3-point edge over Factorial under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46, across the Video interview and ATS-integrated cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Jobma, with 1 level: Jobma is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Factorial on Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Jobma 40 — and at an 18% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Jobma 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
Jobma
AI video interviewing platform offering one-way (pre-recorded), live, and agentic AI interviews with automated transcription and AI scoring of candidate video, audio, and written responses as recruiter decision-support.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Jobma under Video interview 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 Jobma is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Jobma |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Jobma 40
2.7 weighted points to Jobma
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Jobma 55
0.6 weighted points to Jobma
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Jobma 44
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Jobma 60
0.2 weighted points to Jobma
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Jobma 62
0.2 weighted points to Jobma
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Jobma 56
0.1 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Jobma.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Jobma | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 40 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 44 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 49 (F) | -3 | -3.1 |
§ 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 | Jobma | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | 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 | 0 | 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 | 17 | 4 | 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; Jobma has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 21 for Jobma, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Jobma 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