§ The result
Factorial leads Oleeo by 6 points.
Inside the ATS-integrated cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Factorial on 46 and Oleeo on 40, 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Factorial: Factorial is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Oleeo on Bias Audit Transparency. Oleeo takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Factorial 25, Oleeo 40), 100% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Post-Market Monitoring, Factorial 48 to Oleeo 30.
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
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
§ The record
Factorial and Oleeo 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.
| Record | Factorial | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 1995 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Oleeo 40
2.7 weighted points to Oleeo
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Oleeo 40
2.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Oleeo 30
2.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Oleeo 45
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Oleeo 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Oleeo 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Oleeo 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Oleeo.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 40 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +6 | +5.9 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 6 | 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; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo 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