§ The result
CoderPad leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, CoderPad, filed under Assessment, finishes on 42 and Emi, filed under Screening, on 33, 9 points apart. CoderPad takes all 7 criteria from Emi without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Bias Audit Transparency, CoderPad 20 to Emi 18. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (CoderPad 45, Emi 28, 20% weight), is only 37% of the weighted advantage CoderPad builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
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
CoderPad 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 CoderPad is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2013 | 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
CoderPad 45 · Emi 28
3.4 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Emi 44
1.6 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Emi 44
1.5 weighted points to CoderPad
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Emi 35
1.1 weighted points to CoderPad
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Emi 48
0.8 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Emi 25
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Emi 18
0.4 weighted points to CoderPad
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 28 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 18 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 35 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 33 (F) | +9 | +9.2 |
§ 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 | CoderPad | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 5 | 1 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 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 CoderPad and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad 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