§ The result
Factorial leads ZipRecruiter on all 7 criteria.
Factorial scores 46 and ZipRecruiter 40 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Factorial is ahead of ZipRecruiter on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at Factorial 25 to ZipRecruiter 24. The advantage Factorial holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Factorial 52, ZipRecruiter 40, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 38% 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
ZipRecruiter
ZipRecruiter is an online employment marketplace whose AI matching engine sends employers' job postings out, alerts matched job seekers and invites them to apply, and labels and ranks applicants (for example as 'Great Match') in the employer's candidate dashboard.
§ The record
Factorial is filed under ATS-integrated AI, ZipRecruiter under Candidate sourcing 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 | ZipRecruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | ES | US |
| Founded | 2016 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Factorial 52 · ZipRecruiter 40
2.4 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Factorial 35 · ZipRecruiter 27
1.2 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Factorial 48 · ZipRecruiter 40
1.0 weighted points to Factorial
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Factorial 57 · ZipRecruiter 52
0.8 weighted points to Factorial
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Factorial 60 · ZipRecruiter 54
0.5 weighted points to Factorial
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Factorial 58 · ZipRecruiter 55
0.4 weighted points to Factorial
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Factorial 25 · ZipRecruiter 24
0.2 weighted points to Factorial
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Factorial minus ZipRecruiter.
| Category | Weight | Factorial | ZipRecruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 24 | +1 | +0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 40 (F) | +6 | +6.3 |
§ 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 | ZipRecruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 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 | 5 | 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; ZipRecruiter has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for ZipRecruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Factorial, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for ZipRecruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Factorial last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- ZipRecruiter 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