§ The result
Oleeo leads Emi by 7 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Oleeo, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 40 and Emi, filed under Screening, on 33, 7 points apart. Emi takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 5 for Oleeo, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Emi 18, Oleeo 40 — and at an 18% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 5 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
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Oleeo 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 | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 1995 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Oleeo 40
4.0 weighted points to Oleeo
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Oleeo 40
2.4 weighted points to Oleeo
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Oleeo 55
1.3 weighted points to Oleeo
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Oleeo 30
0.6 weighted points to Emi
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Oleeo 55
0.6 weighted points to Oleeo
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Oleeo 45
0.1 weighted points to Oleeo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Oleeo.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 40 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 45 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 40 (F) | -7 | -7.8 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 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 | 6 | 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; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo 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