§ The result
HighMatch leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
HighMatch sits 10 points above Emi under rubric v1.0 — 43 against 33 — with HighMatch filed under Assessment and Emi under Screening. HighMatch is ahead of Emi on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at Emi 25 to HighMatch 30. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Emi 28, HighMatch 45, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage HighMatch 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
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, HighMatch 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 HighMatch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | HighMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · HighMatch 45
3.4 weighted points to HighMatch
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · HighMatch 30
2.2 weighted points to HighMatch
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · HighMatch 60
1.9 weighted points to HighMatch
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · HighMatch 52
1.2 weighted points to HighMatch
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · HighMatch 58
0.8 weighted points to HighMatch
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · HighMatch 30
0.8 weighted points to HighMatch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · HighMatch 40
0.6 weighted points to HighMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus HighMatch.
| Category | Weight | Emi | HighMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 30 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 60 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 43 (F) | -10 | -10.8 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 31 | 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; HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and HighMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HighMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 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