§ The result
Factorial leads Paradox by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Paradox, filed under Scheduling, on 41, 5 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Factorial: Factorial is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Paradox on Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Paradox — Factorial 25, Paradox 50, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 1 criterion 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Paradox 50
4.5 weighted points to Paradox
20% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Paradox 40
2.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Paradox 45
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Paradox 35
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Paradox 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Paradox 45
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Paradox 50
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.9 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 +4.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 50 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 45 | +15 | +1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +4.9 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | Audit 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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