§ The result
Factorial leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Factorial (ATS-integrated) opens a 16-point lead on XOR (Screening), 46 to 30. Factorial leads every one of the 7 criteria, XOR none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Bias Audit Transparency, Factorial 25 to XOR 18. The advantage Factorial holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Factorial 52, XOR 20, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points Factorial gains across the 7 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, XOR 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.
| Record | Factorial | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · XOR 20
6.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · XOR 42
2.3 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · XOR 40
2.2 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · XOR 33
1.8 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · XOR 25
1.5 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · XOR 18
1.3 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · XOR 48
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +16.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +16.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 20 | +32 | +6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 18 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 42 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 30 (F) | +16 | +16.3 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 11 | 7 | 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; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 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 XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR last reviewed
- July 17, 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