§ The result
HiringBranch leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
HiringBranch finishes 19 points clear of Emi under rubric v1.0 — 52 against 33 — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Of the 7 criteria Emi wins none, and the narrowest lead HiringBranch holds is on Post-Market Monitoring, Emi 35 to HiringBranch 40. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Emi 18, HiringBranch 60, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch 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
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, HiringBranch 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 HiringBranch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | HiringBranch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | CA |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · HiringBranch 60
7.6 weighted points to HiringBranch
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · HiringBranch 60
6.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · HiringBranch 55
1.6 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · HiringBranch 35
1.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · HiringBranch 64
1.3 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · HiringBranch 52
1.0 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · HiringBranch 40
0.6 weighted points to HiringBranch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -20.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -19 beside that -20.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus HiringBranch.
| Category | Weight | Emi | HiringBranch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 60 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 60 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 64 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 52 (F) | -19 | -20.0 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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