§ The result
Arctic Shores leads Emi by 13 points.
Arctic Shores sits 13 points above Emi under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 33 — with Arctic Shores filed under Assessment and Emi under Screening. Arctic Shores leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Emi leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Arctic Shores 50, Emi 28, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Arctic Shores holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
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
Arctic Shores is filed under Assessment AI, Emi under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Arctic Shores is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Arctic Shores | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AR |
| Founded | 2013 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Emi 28
4.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Emi 18
3.1 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Emi 44
1.9 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Emi 25
1.5 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Emi 44
1.4 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Emi 48
1.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Emi 35
0.6 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +13.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 28 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 18 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 44 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 48 | +16 | +1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 33 (F) | +13 | +13.0 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 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 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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