§ The result
Harri leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Harri, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 41 and Emi, filed under Screening, on 33, 8 points apart. Harri takes all 7 criteria from Emi without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Bias Audit Transparency, Emi 18 to Harri 22. FRIA Support is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Emi 25, Harri 44, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Harri 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
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Harri under ATS-integrated 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 | Harri |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 33% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Harri 44
2.9 weighted points to Harri
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Harri 35
1.4 weighted points to Harri
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Harri 52
1.2 weighted points to Harri
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Harri 52
1.0 weighted points to Harri
8% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Harri 60
1.0 weighted points to Harri
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Harri 22
0.7 weighted points to Harri
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Harri 40
0.6 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Harri.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Harri | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 22 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 44 | -19 | -2.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 41 (F) | -8 | -8.7 |
§ 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 | Harri | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 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 | 19 | 8 | 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; Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 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