§ The result
Saville Assessment takes the total, Factorial takes more of the criteria.
Saville Assessment holds a 2-point edge over Factorial under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Factorial leads more of the criteria, 4 against 2 for Saville Assessment, yet Saville Assessment takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Saville Assessment 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 80% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 2 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
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Saville Assessment 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 Saville Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Saville Assessment 42
3.1 weighted points to Saville Assessment
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Saville Assessment 38
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Saville Assessment 40
0.8 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Saville Assessment 50
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Saville Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Saville Assessment 55
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.6 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources 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; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment 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