§ The result
isolved leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
isolved, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 14 points above Emi, filed under Screening: 47 against 33 under rubric v1.0. isolved leads every one of the 7 criteria, Emi none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Emi 25 to isolved 30. The advantage isolved holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 18, isolved 45, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 33% of the weighted points isolved gains across the 7 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
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, isolved 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 | isolved |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1986 |
§ 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 · isolved 45
4.9 weighted points to isolved
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · isolved 50
4.4 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · isolved 47
1.4 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · isolved 53
1.3 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · isolved 55
1.3 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · isolved 30
0.8 weighted points to isolved
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · isolved 56
0.6 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus isolved.
| Category | Weight | Emi | isolved | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 45 | -27 | -4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 53 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 47 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 47 (F) | -14 | -14.8 |
§ 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 | isolved | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | 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; isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- isolved 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