§ The result
1 point separates Teamtailor and Factorial.
Teamtailor holds a 1-point edge over Factorial under rubric v1.0, 47 to 46, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. Teamtailor leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Factorial leads 3, including Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, FRIA Support, is both the widest raw gap (Factorial 35, Teamtailor 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 46% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 4 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
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
§ The record
Factorial and Teamtailor 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 | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | SE |
| Founded | 2016 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 27% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Teamtailor 42
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Teamtailor 30
0.9 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Teamtailor 42
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Teamtailor 50
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Teamtailor 62
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Teamtailor 58
0.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 47 (F) | -1 | -0.7 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 14 | 6 | 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; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 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