§ The result
Factorial leads Pulsifi on all 7 criteria.
Factorial sits 13 points above Pulsifi under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 33 — with Factorial filed under ATS-integrated and Pulsifi under Assessment. Factorial leads every one of the 7 criteria, Pulsifi none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Factorial 58 to Pulsifi 55. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Factorial 52, Pulsifi 30, 20% weight), is only 33% of the weighted advantage Factorial builds across the 7 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
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Pulsifi 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 Pulsifi is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Pulsifi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | SG |
| Founded | 2016 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Pulsifi 30
4.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Pulsifi 40
2.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Pulsifi 28
2.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Pulsifi 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Pulsifi 46
1.1 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Pulsifi 20
0.9 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Pulsifi 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Pulsifi.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Pulsifi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 30 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 40 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 28 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 46 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 33 (F) | +13 | +13.2 |
§ 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 | Pulsifi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 26 | 7 | 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; Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pulsifi last reviewed
- September 25, 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