§ The result
Factorial leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 13 points above Qureos, filed under Screening: 46 against 33 under rubric v1.0. Factorial takes all 7 criteria and Qureos none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, Factorial 58 to Qureos 54. The advantage Factorial holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Factorial 52, Qureos 28, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points Factorial gains 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Qureos 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 Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | AE |
| Founded | 2016 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Qureos 28
4.8 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Qureos 12
2.3 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Qureos 44
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Qureos 35
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Qureos 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Qureos 52
0.6 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Qureos 54
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.3 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 +13.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 28 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 12 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 33 (F) | +13 | +13.3 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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