§ The result
4 points separate Factorial and Recruitee.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Factorial edges Recruitee by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. Recruitee takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for Factorial, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. The advantage Factorial holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Factorial 52, Recruitee 42, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points Factorial gains across the 5 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
Recruitee
Collaborative applicant tracking system, part of the Tellent group, with AI-assisted features for job-description generation, screening candidates against team-defined criteria, resurfacing past applicants, and summarizing evaluation feedback.
§ The record
Factorial and Recruitee are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Factorial | Recruitee |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | NL |
| Founded | 2016 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Recruitee 42
2.0 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Recruitee 27
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Recruitee 40
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Recruitee 30
0.9 weighted points to Recruitee
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Recruitee 52
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Recruitee 58
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Recruitee.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Recruitee | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 42 (F) | +4 | +4.2 |
§ 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 | Recruitee | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 14 | 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; Recruitee has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 21 for Recruitee, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruitee last reviewed
- July 17, 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