§ The result
4 points separate Factorial and Talogy.
Factorial (ATS-integrated) edges Talogy (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Factorial: Factorial is ahead on Post-Market Monitoring and Talogy on Bias Audit Transparency. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Factorial 48, Talogy 32, 12% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 5 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
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Talogy 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 Talogy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Talogy 32
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Talogy 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Talogy 30
0.9 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Talogy 52
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Talogy 52
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Talogy 53
0.2 weighted points to Talogy
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Talogy 58
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.0 — 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 +4 beside that +4.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 53 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 32 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 42 (F) | +4 | +4.0 |
§ 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 | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 22 | 9 | 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; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talogy last reviewed
- August 2, 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