§ The result
Thomas International takes the total, Factorial takes more of the criteria.
Thomas International holds a 2-point edge over Factorial under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Factorial leads more of the criteria, 3 against 2 for Thomas International, yet Thomas International takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 89% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 2 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
Thomas International
Thomas International provides psychometric and aptitude assessments (behaviour/DISC, cognitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence) with an AI coaching layer, used for hiring, candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International 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 Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Thomas International 43
3.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Thomas International 40
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Thomas International 54
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 43 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.5 |
§ 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 | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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; Thomas International 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 Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Thomas International 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