§ The result
impress.ai leads Emi by 5 points.
impress.ai scores 38 and Emi 33 under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Screening cohort. impress.ai leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Emi leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Even Data Governance Disclosure, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 44, impress.ai 55, 15% weight), is only 30% of the weighted advantage impress.ai 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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
Emi and impress.ai are both filed under Screening 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 impress.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | AR | SG |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · impress.ai 55
1.6 weighted points to impress.ai
20% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · impress.ai 35
1.4 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · impress.ai 52
1.0 weighted points to impress.ai
8% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · impress.ai 58
0.8 weighted points to impress.ai
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · impress.ai 22
0.7 weighted points to impress.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · impress.ai 32
0.4 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | Emi | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 22 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 32 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 38 (F) | -5 | -5.2 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 18 | 7 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai 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