§ The result
2 points separate Factorial and UKG.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial and UKG finish 2 points apart, 46 to 44, as two ATS-integrated entries. UKG takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for Factorial, whose share includes Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. The advantage Factorial holds is spread out: Post-Market Monitoring is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Factorial 48, UKG 38, 12% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points Factorial gains across the 5 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Factorial and UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · UKG 38
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · UKG 30
0.9 weighted points to UKG
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · UKG 48
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · UKG 52
0.7 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · UKG 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · UKG 56
0.1 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.2 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 +2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 44 (F) | +2 | +2.4 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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