§ The result
4 points separate Fetcher and Emi.
Fetcher (Sourcing) edges Emi (Screening) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 37 to 33. Emi takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 4 for Fetcher, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Data Governance Disclosure is the widest raw gap (Emi 44, Fetcher 55) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Emi 18, Fetcher 28), 36% of the weighted advantage Fetcher builds across the 4 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
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Fetcher under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Emi | Fetcher |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Fetcher 28
1.8 weighted points to Fetcher
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Fetcher 55
1.6 weighted points to Fetcher
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Fetcher 52
1.0 weighted points to Fetcher
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Fetcher 55
0.6 weighted points to Fetcher
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Fetcher 27
0.2 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -4.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Fetcher.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Fetcher | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 27 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 28 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 37 (F) | -4 | -4.8 |
§ 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 | Emi | Fetcher | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 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