§ The result
Factorial leads Willo by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Willo, filed under Video interview, on 41, 5 points apart. Willo takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for Factorial, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Factorial 52, Willo 38 — and at a 20% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 5 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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Willo under Video interview 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 Willo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Low |
| Headquarters | ES | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Willo 38
2.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 52% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Willo 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Willo 36
1.4 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Willo 30
0.9 weighted points to Willo
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Willo 53
0.6 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Willo 62
0.5 weighted points to Willo
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Willo 54
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Willo.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 53 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 36 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +5.4 |
§ 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 | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 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 | 9 | 5 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo 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