§ The result
Crosschq leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Screening entries Crosschq and Emi at 47 and 33, a gap of 14 points. Crosschq leads every one of the 7 criteria, Emi none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Crosschq 30 to Emi 25. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Crosschq 50, Emi 28, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage Crosschq holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire 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
Crosschq and Emi are both filed under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Crosschq is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2018 | 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
Crosschq 50 · Emi 28
4.4 weighted points to Crosschq
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · Emi 18
3.6 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · Emi 44
2.2 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · Emi 44
2.1 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · Emi 48
1.1 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · Emi 25
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · Emi 35
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 28 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 18 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 44 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 33 (F) | +14 | +14.7 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 7 | 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% | 7 | 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 domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 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 |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 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 Crosschq and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq 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