HomeCompareFactorial vs LinkedIn Recruiter

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Factorial vs LinkedIn Recruiter

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

LinkedIn Recruiter leads Factorial on all 7 criteria.

LinkedIn Recruiter sits 11 points above Factorial under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 46 — with LinkedIn Recruiter filed under Sourcing and Factorial under ATS-integrated. Of the 7 criteria Factorial wins none, and the narrowest lead LinkedIn Recruiter holds is on Post-Market Monitoring, Factorial 48 to LinkedIn Recruiter 50. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 25, LinkedIn Recruiter 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 43% of the weighted advantage LinkedIn Recruiter holds across the 7 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, LinkedIn Recruiter under Candidate sourcing 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.

RecordFactorialLinkedIn Recruiter
Price tierLowEnterprise
HeadquartersESUS
Founded20162002

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 43% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Factorial 25 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50

    4.5 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  2. 20% weight · 71% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Factorial 52 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67

    3.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  3. 12% weight · 80% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Factorial 58 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66

    1.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  4. 15% weight · 87% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Factorial 57 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62

    0.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  5. 8% weight · 93% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Factorial 60 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68

    0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  6. 15% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Factorial 35 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38

    0.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  7. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Factorial 48 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50

    0.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.5.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Factorial minus LinkedIn Recruiter.

CategoryWeightFactorialLinkedIn RecruiterΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5267-15-3.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%2550-25-4.5
FRIA Support15%3538-3-0.4
Data Governance Disclosure15%5762-5-0.8
Human Oversight Design12%5866-8-1.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%4850-2-0.2
Customer Documentation8%6068-8-0.6
Total100%46 (F)57 (F)-11-10.5

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFactorialLinkedIn Recruiter
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Sources on the vendor's own domain41Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%41Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%41Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain50Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain61Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain61Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
All criteria100%277Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain345Audit 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; LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Factorial last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
LinkedIn Recruiter 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.