§ The result
CodeSignal leads Emi on 6 of the 7 criteria.
CodeSignal sits 10 points above Emi under rubric v1.0 — 43 against 33 — with CodeSignal filed under Assessment and Emi under Screening. CodeSignal leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Emi is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 CodeSignal leads is Post-Market Monitoring, CodeSignal 38 to Emi 35. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (CodeSignal 45, Emi 18) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 46% of the weighted advantage CodeSignal holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
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
CodeSignal 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 CodeSignal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CodeSignal | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Emi 18
4.9 weighted points to CodeSignal
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Emi 28
2.0 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Emi 44
1.3 weighted points to CodeSignal
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Emi 48
1.1 weighted points to CodeSignal
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Emi 44
0.9 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Emi 35
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +10.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 18 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 33 (F) | +10 | +10.6 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal 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