§ The result
Cangrade leads Emi by 12 points.
Cangrade sits 12 points above Emi under rubric v1.0 — 45 against 33 — with Cangrade filed under Assessment and Emi under Screening. Emi takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Cangrade, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 52, Emi 28, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Cangrade holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade is filed under Assessment AI, Emi under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Emi 28
4.8 weighted points to Cangrade
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Emi 18
3.1 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Emi 44
1.5 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Emi 44
1.4 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Emi 48
1.1 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Emi 25
0.8 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Emi 35
0.4 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +12.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 28 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 18 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 44 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 33 (F) | +12 | +12.3 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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