§ The result
Factorial leads RecruitBot on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and RecruitBot, filed under Sourcing, on 37, 9 points apart. Factorial takes all 7 criteria from RecruitBot without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Bias Audit Transparency, Factorial 25 to RecruitBot 22. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 52, RecruitBot 33 — and at a 20% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 7 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
RecruitBot
RecruitBot is an AI sourcing platform that searches a proprietary database of 655M+ candidate profiles, re-ranks results with machine learning trained on each recruiter's star ratings, and automates personalized email outreach.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, RecruitBot under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Factorial is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Factorial | RecruitBot |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · RecruitBot 33
3.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · RecruitBot 48
1.3 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · RecruitBot 27
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · RecruitBot 50
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · RecruitBot 40
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · RecruitBot 22
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · RecruitBot 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus RecruitBot.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | RecruitBot | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 37 (F) | +9 | +9.2 |
§ 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 | RecruitBot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; RecruitBot has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for RecruitBot sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for RecruitBot, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- RecruitBot 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