§ The result
Feenyx leads Emi on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Feenyx scores 40 and Emi 33 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Feenyx 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 Feenyx leads is Post-Market Monitoring, Emi 35 to Feenyx 38. The advantage Feenyx holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 28, Feenyx 42, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points Feenyx gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
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.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Feenyx under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Feenyx is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Feenyx |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Feenyx 42
2.8 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Feenyx 58
1.7 weighted points to Feenyx
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Feenyx 25
1.3 weighted points to Feenyx
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Feenyx 50
0.9 weighted points to Feenyx
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Feenyx 55
0.6 weighted points to Feenyx
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Feenyx 38
0.4 weighted points to Feenyx
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Feenyx.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Feenyx | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 25 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 40 (F) | -7 | -7.6 |
§ 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 | Emi | Feenyx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Feenyx sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Feenyx 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