§ The result
Ashby leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Ashby finishes 23 points clear of Emi under rubric v1.0 — 56 against 33 — across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Of the 7 criteria Emi wins none, and the narrowest lead Ashby holds is on Post-Market Monitoring, Ashby 42 to Emi 35. The advantage Ashby holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Ashby 62, Emi 18, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 33% of the weighted points Ashby gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
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
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Emi under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Sourcing and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ashby | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2018 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ashby 62 · Emi 18
7.9 weighted points to Ashby
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Emi 28
7.0 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Emi 25
2.5 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Emi 44
2.2 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Emi 44
2.1 weighted points to Ashby
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Emi 48
1.2 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Emi 35
0.8 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +23.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +23 beside that +23.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 28 | +35 | +7.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 18 | +44 | +7.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 44 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 48 | +15 | +1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 33 (F) | +23 | +23.8 |
§ 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 | Ashby | 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% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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