HomeCompareEmi vs Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Emi vs Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Emi on all 7 criteria.

Juicebox (PeopleGPT) finishes 24 points clear of Emi under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 33 — across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Emi leads none. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Emi 18, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 7 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Emi is filed under Screening AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing 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.

RecordEmiJuicebox (PeopleGPT)
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersARUS
Founded20172022

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 49% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Emi 18 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84

    11.9 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

  2. 20% weight · 69% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Emi 28 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52

    4.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

  3. 12% weight · 79% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Emi 35 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55

    2.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

  4. 15% weight · 87% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Emi 44 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56

    1.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

  5. 15% weight · 93% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Emi 25 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35

    1.5 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

  6. 8% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Emi 48 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60

    1.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

  7. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Emi 44 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50

    0.7 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -24.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -24 beside that -24.1.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Emi minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).

CategoryWeightEmiJuicebox (PeopleGPT)Δ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%2852-24-4.8
Bias Audit Transparency18%1884-66-11.9
FRIA Support15%2535-10-1.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%4456-12-1.8
Human Oversight Design12%4450-6-0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%3555-20-2.4
Customer Documentation8%4860-12-1.0
Total100%33 (F)57 (F)-24-24.1

§ 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.

CriterionWeightEmiJuicebox (PeopleGPT)
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%21—30Audit reportSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on a separate domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%51Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on a separate domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on a separate domain20Audit reportSources on a separate domain
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%197Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain124Audit 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Emi last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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.