§ The result
Sense leads Factorial on all 7 criteria.
Sense sits 12 points above Factorial under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 46 — with Sense filed under Screening and Factorial under ATS-integrated. Sense takes all 7 criteria and Factorial none of them; the nearest contest is Data Governance Disclosure, Factorial 57 to Sense 58. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 25, Sense 72) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 70% of the weighted advantage Sense holds 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Sense 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.
| Record | Factorial | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Sense 72
8.5 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Sense 60
1.6 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Sense 64
0.7 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Sense 52
0.5 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Sense 38
0.4 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Sense 62
0.2 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Sense 58
0.1 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -12.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 72 | -47 | -8.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 58 (F) | -12 | -12.0 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense last reviewed
- June 7, 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