§ The result
Greenhouse leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 34 points between Greenhouse (ATS-integrated) and Emi (Screening): 67 (D) for Greenhouse, 33 (F) for Emi. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Emi leads none. The advantage Greenhouse holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 18, Greenhouse 86, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points Greenhouse gains across the 7 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
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Greenhouse under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Emi | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Greenhouse 86
12.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Greenhouse 78
10.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Greenhouse 64
3.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Greenhouse 58
2.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Greenhouse 66
2.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Greenhouse 42
2.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Greenhouse 64
1.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -34.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 34.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -34 beside that -34.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Greenhouse.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Greenhouse | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 78 | -50 | -10.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 86 | -68 | -12.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 64 | -20 | -3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 66 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 58 | -23 | -2.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 64 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 67 (D) | -34 | -34.5 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 1 | 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; Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Greenhouse sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Greenhouse 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