§ The result
Fountain leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Screening, Fountain and Emi come out 44 and 33 under rubric v1.0, 11 points in favour of Fountain. Fountain leads every one of the 7 criteria, Emi none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Emi 48 to Fountain 52. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Emi 28, Fountain 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Fountain holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
§ The record
Emi and Fountain are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Scheduling and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Emi | Fountain |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Fountain 50
4.4 weighted points to Fountain
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Fountain 30
2.2 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Fountain 58
1.7 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Fountain 55
1.6 weighted points to Fountain
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Fountain 30
0.8 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Fountain 40
0.6 weighted points to Fountain
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Fountain 52
0.3 weighted points to Fountain
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -11.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Fountain.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Fountain | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 30 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 44 (F) | -11 | -11.6 |
§ 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 | Fountain | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 14 | 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; Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Fountain last reviewed
- June 7, 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