§ The result
Korn Ferry leads Emi by 13 points.
Korn Ferry sits 13 points above Emi under rubric v1.0 — 46 against 33 — with Korn Ferry filed under Assessment and Emi under Screening. Korn Ferry leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Emi leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Emi 28, Korn Ferry 58) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 43% of the weighted advantage Korn Ferry holds 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
Korn Ferry
Korn Ferry provides psychometric talent assessments (Korn Ferry Assess, the KF4D Four Dimensional assessment, KFALP leadership-potential assessment, and the Leadership Architect competency framework) used to evaluate candidates' personality, competencies, drivers, and cognitive ability for selection, promotion, and development decisions.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Korn Ferry under Assessment 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 Korn Ferry is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Korn Ferry |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1969 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Korn Ferry 58
6.0 weighted points to Korn Ferry
18% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Korn Ferry 48
5.4 weighted points to Korn Ferry
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Korn Ferry 52
1.2 weighted points to Korn Ferry
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Korn Ferry 52
1.0 weighted points to Korn Ferry
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Korn Ferry 52
0.3 weighted points to Korn Ferry
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Korn Ferry 33
0.2 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -13.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -13.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Korn Ferry.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Korn Ferry | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 58 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 48 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 46 (F) | -13 | -13.6 |
§ 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 | Korn Ferry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 10 | 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; Korn Ferry has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 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 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Korn Ferry, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Korn Ferry 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