§ The result
Factorial leads micro1 on all 7 criteria.
Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 10 points above micro1, filed under Screening: 46 against 36 under rubric v1.0. Factorial leads every one of the 7 criteria, micro1 none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Factorial 52 to micro1 50. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Factorial 48, micro1 25, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 27% 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
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, micro1 under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only micro1 is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · micro1 25
2.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 46% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · micro1 22
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · micro1 45
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · micro1 48
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · micro1 45
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · micro1 20
0.9 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · micro1 50
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 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 +10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 22 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 25 | +23 | +2.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 45 | +15 | +1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 36 (F) | +10 | +10.2 |
§ 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 | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | 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 | 7 | 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 | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 25 | 8 | Sources 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; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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