§ The result
Factorial leads softgarden on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Factorial holds a 4-point edge over softgarden under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. softgarden 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 softgarden 58. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 52, softgarden 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 46% 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Factorial and softgarden 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | DE |
| Founded | 2016 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · softgarden 42
2.0 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · softgarden 30
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · softgarden 22
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · softgarden 44
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · softgarden 54
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · softgarden 58
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 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 +4.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 44 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 42 (F) | +4 | +4.4 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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