Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Arena Analytics vs Emi
Arena Analytics
Arena scores job applicants, mainly for healthcare and senior-living employers, on how likely they are to show up and stay in a specific role at a specific location, reroutes and sources candidates it rates likely to be retained, and applies the same outcome models to employee flight risk and internal mobility.
Substantial gaps
Screening
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.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
1 point separates Emi and Arena Analytics.
Within the Screening cohort, Emi edges Arena Analytics by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 33 to 32. Emi leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Arena Analytics leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Arena Analytics takes Bias Audit Transparency at 18%, Arena Analytics 25 to Emi 18, 76% of the weighted advantage Arena Analytics holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Customer Documentation, Arena Analytics 38 to Emi 48.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Arena Analytics2
- Emi4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Customer Documentation38 vs 48
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Arena Analytics and Emi are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of
Only Arena Analytics is in scope of
| Record | Arena Analytics | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight29% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics25Emi181.3 weighted points to Arena Analytics
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight49% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics28Emi350.8 weighted points to Emi
- 3
Customer Documentation
8% weight67% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics38Emi480.8 weighted points to Emi
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight84% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics38Emi440.7 weighted points to Emi
- 5
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight93% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics30Emi280.4 weighted points to Arena Analytics
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Arena Analytics42Emi440.3 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.0.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arena Analytics minus Emi, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Arena Analytics | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 18 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 38 | 44 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 32F | 33F | -1 | -1.0 |
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 | Arena Analytics | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Arena Analytics has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 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 Arena Analytics and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Arena Analytics, across 3 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arena Analytics last reviewed
- September 25, 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
Scored against