§ The result
Humanly leads Emi by 9 points.
Inside the Screening cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Humanly on 42 and Emi on 33, 9 points apart. Emi takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 5 for Humanly, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 18, Humanly 40, 18% weight), is only 36% of the weighted advantage Humanly builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Humanly
Conversational AI for high-volume recruiting that engages, screens, and schedules candidates across chat, SMS, email, voice, and video, with structured AI interviews and automated scoring.
§ The record
Emi and Humanly are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Humanly is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Humanly |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Humanly 40
4.0 weighted points to Humanly
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Humanly 45
3.4 weighted points to Humanly
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Humanly 58
1.7 weighted points to Humanly
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Humanly 35
1.5 weighted points to Humanly
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Humanly 40
0.6 weighted points to Emi
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Humanly 30
0.6 weighted points to Emi
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Humanly 52
0.3 weighted points to Humanly
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Humanly.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Humanly | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 40 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 42 (F) | -9 | -9.7 |
§ 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 | Humanly | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 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; Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Humanly last reviewed
- June 7, 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
Scored against