§ The result
Factorial leads Pillar by 6 points.
Factorial scores 46 and Pillar 40 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Pillar takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 6 for Factorial, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Pillar takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Factorial 25, Pillar 38), 100% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Post-Market Monitoring, Factorial 48 to Pillar 33.
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
Pillar
Pillar (now "AI Interview Companion by Employ") is an interview intelligence platform that records and transcribes job interviews, generates AI interview guides and highlight clips, and surfaces candidate insights and interviewer-coaching recommendations.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Pillar 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 Pillar is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Pillar |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Pillar 38
2.3 weighted points to Pillar
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Pillar 42
2.0 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Pillar 45
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Pillar 33
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Pillar 48
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Pillar 50
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Pillar 30
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 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 +6.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Pillar.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Pillar | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +6 | +6.0 |
§ 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 | Pillar | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 7 | 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; Pillar has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Pillar, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pillar 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