Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Emi vs HireLogic
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.
Substantial gaps
Screening
HireLogic
HireLogic joins phone, video and in-person interviews to transcribe them and generate AI notes, job-description coverage, candidate insights and flags for potentially discriminatory interviewer questions, and also offers an asynchronous AI interview agent that scores candidates on relevance and depth of knowledge.
Substantial gaps
Video interview
The result
1 point separates HireLogic and Emi.
HireLogic holds a 1-point edge over Emi under rubric v1.0, 34 to 33, across the Video interview and Screening cohorts. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Emi and HireLogic, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side HireLogic holds, headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation, settle the total. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Emi 28, HireLogic 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage HireLogic holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Emi3
- HireLogic3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation28 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Emi is filed under Screening AI, HireLogic under Video interview AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only HireLogic is in scope of
| Record | Emi | HireLogic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | Not recorded |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight55% of the movement so far
Emi28HireLogic422.8 weighted points to HireLogic
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight72% of the movement so far
Emi35HireLogic280.8 weighted points to Emi
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight83% of the movement so far
Emi18HireLogic150.5 weighted points to Emi
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
Emi44HireLogic480.5 weighted points to HireLogic
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
Emi48HireLogic450.2 weighted points to Emi
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Emi44HireLogic450.1 weighted points to HireLogic
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus HireLogic, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Emi | HireLogic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 15 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 45 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 33F | 34F | -1 | -1.8 |
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 | HireLogic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 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 | 23 | 6 | 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; HireLogic has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for HireLogic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HireLogic 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.