§ The result
Factorial leads Workstream by 7 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and Workstream, filed under Screening, on 39, 7 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Factorial: Factorial is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Workstream on Human Oversight Design. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Factorial 48, Workstream 35) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Factorial 52, Workstream 40), the second being 30% of the weighted advantage Factorial holds across the 6 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Workstream under Screening 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 Workstream is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Factorial | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · Workstream 40
2.4 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · Workstream 35
1.6 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · Workstream 47
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · Workstream 27
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · Workstream 20
0.9 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · Workstream 61
0.4 weighted points to Workstream
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · Workstream 56
0.3 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.5 — 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 +7 beside that +7.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 20 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 47 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 61 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 39 (F) | +7 | +7.5 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 6 | Sources 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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