§ The result
Hireology leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Hireology (ATS-integrated) opens a 24-point lead on Emi (Screening), 57 to 33. Emi leads none of the 7 criteria, and Hireology 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, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Hireology 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
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Hireology 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 | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Hireology 83
11.7 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Hireology 50
4.4 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Hireology 59
2.9 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Hireology 57
1.6 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Hireology 35
1.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Hireology 52
1.2 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Hireology 58
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -24.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -24 beside that -24.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 83 | -65 | -11.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 59 | -24 | -2.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 57 (F) | -24 | -24.0 |
§ 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 | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | 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 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 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; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Hireology 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 Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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