§ The result
Draup leads Emi by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Draup, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 42 and Emi, filed under Screening, on 33, 9 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Draup, with 1 level: Draup is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Emi on Post-Market Monitoring. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Draup 48, Emi 28, 20% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage Draup builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Emi under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Draup | Emi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AR |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Emi 28
4.0 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Emi 18
2.7 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Emi 44
1.7 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Emi 44
1.5 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Emi 35
0.8 weighted points to Emi
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Emi 48
0.7 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Emi.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Emi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 28 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 18 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +0.7 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 33 (F) | +9 | +9.8 |
§ 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 | Draup | Emi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup and Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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