§ The result
Tribepad leads Factorial by 10 points.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, Tribepad and Factorial come out 56 and 46 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Tribepad. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Factorial and Tribepad, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Tribepad holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 25, Tribepad 78 — and at an 18% weight it carries 86% of the weighted advantage Tribepad holds across the 3 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
Tribepad
Tribepad is a UK applicant tracking system whose built-in Sidekick AI assistant scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted skills and generates candidate summaries, SWOT analyses, job descriptions, salary suggestions and interview questions.
§ The record
Factorial and Tribepad 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 | Tribepad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2008 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Tribepad 78
9.5 weighted points to Tribepad
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Tribepad 56
0.8 weighted points to Tribepad
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Tribepad 30
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Tribepad 54
0.7 weighted points to Tribepad
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Tribepad 58
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Tribepad 56
0.1 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Tribepad.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Tribepad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 78 | -53 | -9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 56 (F) | -10 | -10.0 |
§ 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 | Tribepad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Factorial has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Tribepad has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tribepad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Tribepad, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tribepad 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