§ The result
3 points separate Emi and Cognisess.
Emi holds a 3-point edge over Cognisess under rubric v1.0, 33 to 30, across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Cognisess takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 6 for Emi, whose share includes FRIA Support. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Cognisess 40, Emi 48) and FRIA Support at 15% (Cognisess 20, Emi 25), the second being 26% of the weighted advantage Emi holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
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
Cognisess 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 Cognisess is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AR |
| Founded | 2011 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 23% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Emi 25
0.8 weighted points to Emi
8% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Emi 48
0.6 weighted points to Emi
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Emi 28
0.6 weighted points to Emi
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Emi 18
0.4 weighted points to Cognisess
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Emi 35
0.4 weighted points to Emi
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Emi 44
0.3 weighted points to Emi
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Emi 44
0.2 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 18 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 25 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 33 (F) | -3 | -2.5 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | 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 | — | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 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 Cognisess and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess 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