§ The result
2 points separate Emi and Intervue.io.
Emi holds a 2-point edge over Intervue.io under rubric v1.0, 33 to 31, across the Screening and Video interview cohorts. Emi leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Intervue.io leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Human Oversight Design is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Intervue.io — Emi 44, Intervue.io 54, on a 12% weight — which is 88% of the weighted advantage Intervue.io holds across the 2 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
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Intervue.io under Video interview 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 Intervue.io is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Intervue.io |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | IN |
| Founded | 2017 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Intervue.io 54
1.2 weighted points to Intervue.io
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Intervue.io 12
1.1 weighted points to Emi
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Intervue.io 38
0.9 weighted points to Emi
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Intervue.io 30
0.6 weighted points to Emi
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Intervue.io 22
0.4 weighted points to Emi
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Intervue.io 50
0.2 weighted points to Intervue.io
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Intervue.io.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Intervue.io | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 12 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 54 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 31 (F) | +2 | +1.7 |
§ 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 | Intervue.io | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 5 | 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 | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 30 | 7 | Sources 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; Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Intervue.io sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Intervue.io 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