§ The result
HiPeople leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople (Assessment) and Emi (Screening) are 28 points apart under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) for HiPeople against 33 (F) for Emi. Emi leads none of the 7 criteria, and HiPeople is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Emi 18, HiPeople 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage HiPeople 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
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, HiPeople 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 HiPeople is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | DE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · HiPeople 84
11.9 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · HiPeople 62
6.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · HiPeople 60
3.0 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · HiPeople 62
2.2 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · HiPeople 58
2.1 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · HiPeople 35
1.5 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · HiPeople 66
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -28.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 28.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -28 beside that -28.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus HiPeople.
| Category | Weight | Emi | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 62 | -34 | -6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 84 | -66 | -11.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 62 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 60 | -25 | -3.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 66 | -18 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 61 (D) | -28 | -28.9 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 8 | 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; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople 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