§ The result
4 points separate Factorial and Talview.
Factorial (ATS-integrated) edges Talview (Video interview) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. Factorial leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Talview leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Talview takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Factorial 25, Talview 38), 100% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Post-Market Monitoring, Factorial 48 to Talview 32.
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
Talview
AI-powered hiring and exam-integrity platform spanning video interviewing, skills assessments, identity verification, and AI proctoring.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Talview under Video interview 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 Talview is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Talview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Talview 38
2.3 weighted points to Talview
12% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Talview 32
1.9 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Talview 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Talview 48
1.3 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Talview 52
0.6 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Talview 50
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Talview 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.5 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 +3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Talview.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Talview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 32 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 42 (F) | +4 | +3.8 |
§ 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 | Talview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 11 | 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; Talview has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Talview, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talview 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