§ The result
Phenom leads Emi by 19 points.
Phenom finishes 19 points clear of Emi under rubric v1.0 — 52 against 33 — across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Phenom leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Emi leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Emi 18, Phenom 75) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Phenom 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
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Phenom under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Emi | Phenom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Phenom 75
10.3 weighted points to Phenom
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Phenom 55
5.4 weighted points to Phenom
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Phenom 60
2.4 weighted points to Phenom
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Phenom 60
1.9 weighted points to Phenom
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Phenom 30
0.6 weighted points to Emi
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Phenom 55
0.6 weighted points to Phenom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -19.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 21.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -19 beside that -19.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Phenom.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Phenom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 55 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 75 | -57 | -10.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 60 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 60 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 52 (F) | -19 | -19.9 |
§ 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 | Phenom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 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 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Phenom last reviewed
- May 21, 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