§ The result
Codility leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Codility finishes 21 points clear of Emi under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 33 — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Of the 7 criteria Emi wins none, and the narrowest lead Codility holds is on Data Governance Disclosure, Codility 57 to Emi 44. The advantage Codility holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Codility 60, Emi 28, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 30% of the weighted points Codility gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Codility
Codility is a technical/coding assessment platform that screens and interviews software engineers with work-sample coding tests, live technical interviews, and integrity tooling including plagiarism and AI-use detection.
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
Codility 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 Codility is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Codility | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AR |
| Founded | 2009 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Emi 28
6.4 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Emi 18
4.9 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Emi 25
2.5 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Emi 44
2.2 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · Emi 44
1.9 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Emi 35
1.8 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Emi 48
1.4 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +21.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 21.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +21 beside that +21.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 28 | +32 | +6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 18 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 44 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 44 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 35 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 48 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 33 (F) | +21 | +21.2 |
§ 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 | Codility | 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% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 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 Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 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