§ The result
2 points separate VidCruiter and Factorial.
VidCruiter holds a 2-point edge over Factorial under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the Video interview and ATS-integrated cohorts. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Factorial and VidCruiter, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side VidCruiter holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. VidCruiter takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Factorial 25, VidCruiter 38), which is 58% of the weighted advantage VidCruiter holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, Factorial 48 to VidCruiter 33.
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
VidCruiter
VidCruiter is an enterprise recruitment platform combining live and pre-recorded video interviewing, structured interview workflows, automated scheduling, skills testing, automated reference checks, and AI features such as transcript-based AI Interview Scoring, AI Interview Notes, and AI fraud detection.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, VidCruiter under Video interview AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only VidCruiter is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | VidCruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | ES | CA |
| Founded | 2016 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · VidCruiter 38
2.3 weighted points to VidCruiter
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · VidCruiter 33
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · VidCruiter 58
1.2 weighted points to VidCruiter
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · VidCruiter 62
0.5 weighted points to VidCruiter
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · VidCruiter 32
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · VidCruiter 56
0.1 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 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 -1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus VidCruiter.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | VidCruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.6 |
§ 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 | VidCruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 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 | — |
| 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 | 12 | 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; VidCruiter has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for VidCruiter, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- VidCruiter 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