§ The result
DevSkiller leads Emi on 6 of the 7 criteria.
DevSkiller scores 39 and Emi 33 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. DevSkiller 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 DevSkiller leads is Bias Audit Transparency, DevSkiller 22 to Emi 18. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (DevSkiller 55, Emi 44) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (DevSkiller 35, Emi 28), 23% of the weighted advantage DevSkiller builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
DevSkiller
DevSkiller (now branded SkillPanel) provides technical skills assessment and coding tests that automatically score developer candidates on real-world work-sample tasks using hidden verification unit tests and static code analysis.
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
DevSkiller 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 DevSkiller is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | DevSkiller | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | PL | AR |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
DevSkiller 35 · Emi 28
1.4 weighted points to DevSkiller
12% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
DevSkiller 55 · Emi 44
1.3 weighted points to DevSkiller
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
DevSkiller 52 · Emi 44
1.2 weighted points to DevSkiller
8% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
DevSkiller 58 · Emi 48
0.8 weighted points to DevSkiller
18% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
DevSkiller 22 · Emi 18
0.7 weighted points to DevSkiller
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
DevSkiller 40 · Emi 35
0.6 weighted points to DevSkiller
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is DevSkiller minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | DevSkiller | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 18 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 33 (F) | +6 | +6.0 |
§ 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 | DevSkiller | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 4 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
DevSkiller has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 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 DevSkiller and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 15 for DevSkiller, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- DevSkiller 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