§ The result
Brainner leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Brainner sits 13 points above Emi under rubric v1.0, 46 against 33, with both filed under Screening. Brainner leads every one of the 7 criteria, Emi none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Brainner 30 to Emi 25. The advantage Brainner holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Brainner 52, Emi 28, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 34% of the weighted points Brainner gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
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
Brainner and Emi are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Brainner | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2023 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Emi 28
4.8 weighted points to Brainner
18% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Emi 18
4.3 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Emi 44
1.3 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Emi 35
1.2 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Emi 48
0.8 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Emi 25
0.8 weighted points to Brainner
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Emi 44
0.7 weighted points to Brainner
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +13.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.9 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 +13.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 28 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 18 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 44 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 35 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 33 (F) | +13 | +13.9 |
§ 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 | Brainner | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner 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