§ The result
HackerRank leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerRank (Assessment) opens a 22-point lead on Emi (Screening), 55 to 33. HackerRank takes all 7 criteria and Emi none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, Emi 25 to HackerRank 35. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Emi 18, HackerRank 68, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage HackerRank 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
HackerRank
HackerRank is a technical skills assessment platform for developer hiring that uses coding tests, interviews, and AI-based features (question generation, ML plagiarism/AI-code detection, and image-analysis proctoring) to evaluate candidates.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, HackerRank under Assessment 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. Only HackerRank is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | HackerRank |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · HackerRank 68
9.0 weighted points to HackerRank
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · HackerRank 60
6.4 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · HackerRank 60
1.9 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · HackerRank 55
1.6 weighted points to HackerRank
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · HackerRank 35
1.5 weighted points to HackerRank
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · HackerRank 45
1.2 weighted points to HackerRank
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · HackerRank 62
1.1 weighted points to HackerRank
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -22 beside that -22.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus HackerRank.
| Category | Weight | Emi | HackerRank | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 60 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 68 | -50 | -9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 60 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 55 (F) | -22 | -22.8 |
§ 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 | HackerRank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 4 | 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; HackerRank has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and HackerRank sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for HackerRank, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerRank 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