§ The result
Personio leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Personio scores 40 and Emi 33 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Personio is ahead of Emi on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Customer Documentation at Emi 48 to Personio 50. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (Emi 35, Personio 48) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Emi 28, Personio 40), 31% of the weighted advantage Personio builds 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
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Personio under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Emi | Personio |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | DE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Personio 40
2.4 weighted points to Personio
12% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Personio 48
1.6 weighted points to Personio
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Personio 25
1.3 weighted points to Personio
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Personio 52
1.2 weighted points to Personio
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Personio 30
0.8 weighted points to Personio
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Personio 48
0.5 weighted points to Personio
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Personio 50
0.2 weighted points to Personio
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 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 Personio.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Personio | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 25 | -7 | -1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.2 |
| 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 | Personio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 13 | 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; Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Personio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Personio, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 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