§ The result
Plum takes the total, Factorial takes more of the criteria.
Plum scores 54 and Factorial 46 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Factorial leads more of the criteria than Plum — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Plum leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Plum. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 25, Plum 83) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 88% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 3 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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Plum under Assessment 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. Only Plum is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | CA |
| Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Plum 83
10.4 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Plum 36
1.4 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Plum 58
1.2 weighted points to Plum
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Plum 28
1.1 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Plum 52
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Plum 54
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Plum 63
0.2 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Plum.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 83 | -58 | -10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 36 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 63 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -8.2 |
§ 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 | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 4 | 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum 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