§ The result
Factorial leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Factorial finishes 16 points clear of Moonhub under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 30 — across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Factorial leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Moonhub leads none. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (Factorial 48, Moonhub 22) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Factorial 52, Moonhub 30), 28% of the weighted advantage Factorial builds across the 7 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
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Moonhub 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.
| Record | Factorial | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2022 |
§ 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 · Moonhub 30
4.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Moonhub 22
3.1 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Moonhub 40
2.5 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Moonhub 38
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Moonhub 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Moonhub 18
1.3 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Moonhub 48
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 30 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 18 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 40 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 22 | +26 | +3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 38 | +22 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 30 (F) | +16 | +15.8 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 7 | 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; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 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