Factorial is an HR platform with invoicing beside it, and its own legal annex says it acts only as a facilitator and performs no regulatory compliance checks. GoFeed issues the commercial paperwork of content work and keeps the hash chain of every invoice. Different problems, and honestly different answers to them.
Two products that touch at one corner
Factorial manages people: absences, time tracking, shifts, reviews, recruiting, payroll and the employment documentation of every member of staff. A content tool manages client engagements: what gets produced, who approves it, when it goes out and what is charged for it. The only place the two meet is the invoice, and that is precisely where they do things that resemble each other far less than the shared word suggests.
| Factorial | GoFeed | |
|---|---|---|
| Human resources and payroll | Yes, it is their product | No |
| Electronic signature on documents | Yes, in the base module | No |
| Commercial quotes to clients | Not published on their site | Yes, from the service catalogue |
| Contracts | Employment contracts for staff | Commercial, with service line items |
| Invoice numbering series | Not published on their site | Yes |
| IRPF withholding on the invoice | Not published on their site | Yes |
| Verifactu filing to the tax agency | Yes, through a third party provider | No |
| Hash chain per invoice | Not detailed on their site | Yes |
| Publishing to social networks | No | Yes, on fourteen networks |
The row worth reading twice is the filing one. It does not say a flat yes, and that precision is not ours: it comes from Factorial's own legal page, which is where this article gets interesting and where it stops resembling every other comparison in this category.
What Factorial says about itself on Verifactu
The terms annex about sending invoices through Verifactu, published on their own domain in Spanish, contains two sentences a buyer should read before any feature table. The first defines the company's role, and translates as:
Factorial acts only as a facilitator of the process, providing a technological tool.
The second narrows its responsibility further:
Factorial performs no tax reviews and no regulatory compliance checks.
Invoices are sent to a third party provider, and it is that provider which transmits the information to the Spanish tax agency through the Verifactu system. Factorial describes itself as a mere facilitator and takes on no responsibility for fiscal validation. The page also does not say which plan or which hub the feature belongs to, and gives no date, so from outside it cannot be confirmed whether it is live for every customer or restricted.
Facilitator is not an insult, but it moves the liability
This deserves saying calmly, because those two sentences are easy to read as an attack and they are not one. It is a legitimate contractual position and a fairly common one in horizontal software: the tool carries the data and somebody else supplies the fiscal judgement. Plenty of integrations work exactly like that and nobody has done anything wrong.
What does change is who you ask when something goes sideways. A Spanish invoicing package that signs its own compliance declaration is standing in front of the problem: if what it declares is untrue, it can be held to it. A facilitator that expressly declares it does not review regulatory compliance is standing beside the problem, and the judgement falls back to your accountant or to you. Neither posture is better in the abstract, but only one of them is written into the annex you accept when you sign up.
There is a practical consequence worth anticipating. If the tax agency rejects a record, or a number series breaks, the operational question is who helps you repair it and under what commitment. A provider that has stated it does not verify compliance can handle the technical incident of the transmission, which is what it promised, and has no obligation to opine on whether the invoice was correctly framed in the first place. That boundary is healthy as long as you know about it, and quite uncomfortable if you discover it the day a demand letter arrives. How the three Spanish invoicing packages word their own commitment is in the agency invoicing software guide.
How Factorial is paid for
The pricing model belongs to another family too. Factorial charges per person per month on a base module, and the modules stacked on top carry bespoke pricing rather than a published rate card.
| Level | Published price | Unit | What it includes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factorial Core | From 5.5 € | Per person per month | Documents, electronic signature, directory, org chart |
| Time, Talent, Finance, IT | On request | Bespoke | Absences and clock in, reviews, expenses and payroll, inventory |
Prices checked on 8 September 2026: Factorial, plans and pricing, Factorial, Verifactu invoice sending annex.
That detail matters more than it looks when what you want is to invoice clients. Invoicing lives inside the Finance hub, whose price is on request, so there is no way to project the annual cost from the site. And because the platform is charged per employee, the price grows with the size of your team even if the invoices you issue are the same, which is exactly the opposite relationship from the one a small agency with many clients wants.
Which part of the regulation exists on the other side
Royal Decree 1007/2023 is three requirements and they are better kept apart. An invoicing record for every invoice issued. A chain of hashes linking each record to the previous one, so that altering an old invoice breaks the whole chain. And, only in Verifactu mode, submitting that record to the Spanish tax agency with its QR code printed on the document.
What is built in GoFeed is the second: every issued invoice is computed over a frozen field order and linked to the previous one. The printed QR and the submission are not part of what ships today, and saying so this plainly is part of the deal. It is the only piece of the product badged as pending, and anyone who needs all three today needs a Spanish invoicing package alongside.
Separating the three is not pedantry. A tool can satisfy the first and still be a tidy list of issued invoices; it can satisfy the second and guarantee that none of them is touched afterwards; and it can satisfy the third by delegating it, which is precisely the case this article describes. When a comparison compresses all of that into a cell reading "Verifactu: yes", it deletes the only information that helps anybody decide.
Everything in this article happens in one place in GoFeed.
Try it freeContracts: one word for two different things
The most expensive misunderstanding in this comparison lives here, and it is not unique to Factorial. When an HR platform says contracts, it means employment contracts: staff documentation, hiring, onboarding, addenda and their signature. When an agency tool says contracts, it means a commercial agreement with a client, with service line items, a scope and an amount. Buying the first while expecting the second is a mistake that surfaces late.
On the commercial side the chain is literal and worth describing. The brief takes fifteen field types and can also be generated from a PDF the client uploads. The quote is assembled from the service catalogue, so the lines already carry a description and a price. The contract inherits those lines. And the invoice comes out of that, with your own series, eight VAT regimes and IRPF withholding, the income tax a Spanish invoice may retain, so the amount the client sees is the one they approved weeks earlier.
What is missing on that side is electronic signature. The contract is drafted, shared through a tokenised link that is not indexed, and signed outside the product. Factorial does sign, and from its base module. How brief, quote, contract and invoice are ordered is on the quotes and invoices page, and all of it lives in agency workspaces, the ones with clients that have a fiscal identity of their own.
What Factorial does better
Three things, and the first is enormous.
Human resources, which is its real product and a very strong one. Absences, time tracking, shifts, reviews, recruiting, training, payroll with advisory support, org chart, internal communications and onboarding and offboarding templates. If your problem is managing people, the comparison ends in this paragraph and there is nothing to argue about.
Legally valid electronic signature included in the base module, at no extra cost, applied to employment documentation. On the other side no signature of any kind exists, so Factorial wins that row cleanly. For a company that hires often, having the offer, the contract and the onboarding pack signed in the same place as the org chart removes an entire tool from the stack, and that is a real saving rather than a feature bullet.
And the modular model, which lets you pay only for the hubs you use instead of a closed bundle. For a company growing area by area that granularity is worth money: you open Time when clocking in becomes necessary, Talent when reviews start and Finance when expenses stop fitting in a spreadsheet, without paying for any of the three beforehand. The sensible conclusion is the usual one in this category: each tool to the problem it solves, without asking one of them to answer for what the other signs. What the content side costs is on the pricing page, and the comparison against the most complete Spanish accounting suite is in the Holded comparison.