§ The result
Factorial leads Recruiterflow on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Factorial sits 10 points above Recruiterflow under rubric v1.0, 46 against 36, with both filed under ATS-integrated. Recruiterflow is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Factorial takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Customer Documentation, Factorial 60 to Recruiterflow 56. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Factorial 52, Recruiterflow 33, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 6 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Factorial and Recruiterflow are both filed under ATS-integrated 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 | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Recruiterflow 33
3.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Recruiterflow 44
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Recruiterflow 33
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Recruiterflow 18
1.3 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Recruiterflow 30
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Recruiterflow 56
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 18 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 36 (F) | +10 | +9.9 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 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 domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
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 Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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