§ The result
4 points separate AmazingHiring and Emi.
AmazingHiring holds a 4-point edge over Emi under rubric v1.0, 37 to 33, across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Emi takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for AmazingHiring, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (AmazingHiring 35, Emi 28, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage AmazingHiring holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
Vendor profile
Emi
Emi runs AI agents on WhatsApp, SMS and Messenger that screen and score frontline job applicants against employer-set criteria, schedule interviews, and collect hiring documents and check them against Mexican government databases.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Emi under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Emi is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2011 | 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
AmazingHiring 35 · Emi 28
1.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Emi 44
0.9 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Emi 25
0.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
18% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Emi 18
0.7 weighted points to AmazingHiring
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Emi 44
0.5 weighted points to AmazingHiring
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Emi 48
0.3 weighted points to AmazingHiring
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Emi 35
0.2 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 18 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 44 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 33 (F) | +4 | +4.3 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Emi 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