§ The result
Factorial leads Manatal by 5 points.
Inside the ATS-integrated cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Factorial on 46 and Manatal on 41, 5 points apart. Manatal takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Factorial, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 52, Manatal 33) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 63% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 5 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
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
§ The record
Factorial and Manatal 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. Only Manatal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Manatal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Low |
| Headquarters | ES | TH |
| Founded | 2016 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Manatal 33
3.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Manatal 52
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Manatal 43
0.6 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Manatal 22
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Manatal 33
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Manatal 60
0.2 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Manatal 62
0.2 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Manatal.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Manatal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 43 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +5.6 |
§ 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 | Manatal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 5 | 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; Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Manatal 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