§ The result
3 points separate micro1 and Emi.
Under rubric v1.0, micro1 and Emi finish 3 points apart, 36 to 33, as two Screening entries. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of micro1: micro1 is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Emi on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Emi 28, micro1 50) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 82% of the weighted advantage micro1 holds across the 4 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
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
§ The record
Emi and micro1 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 micro1 is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | micro1 |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · micro1 50
4.4 weighted points to micro1
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · micro1 25
1.2 weighted points to Emi
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · micro1 48
0.5 weighted points to micro1
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · micro1 22
0.4 weighted points to Emi
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · micro1 20
0.4 weighted points to micro1
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · micro1 45
0.2 weighted points to Emi
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · micro1 45
0.1 weighted points to micro1
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus micro1.
| Category | Weight | Emi | micro1 | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 20 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 22 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 45 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 36 (F) | -3 | -3.5 |
§ 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 | micro1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 8 | 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; micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- micro1 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
Scored against