§ The result
Phenom leads Factorial by 6 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Phenom, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 52 and Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, on 46, 6 points apart. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Phenom: Phenom is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Factorial on Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Phenom 75 — and at an 18% weight it carries 87% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds across the 4 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
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Phenom 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 | Phenom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Phenom 75
9.0 weighted points to Phenom
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Phenom 30
2.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Phenom 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Phenom 55
0.6 weighted points to Phenom
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Phenom 60
0.4 weighted points to Phenom
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Phenom 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Phenom 60
0.2 weighted points to Phenom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.3 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 -6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Phenom.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Phenom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 75 | -50 | -9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 52 (F) | -6 | -6.2 |
§ 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 | Phenom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
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 Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Phenom 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