§ The result
Pin leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Pin scores 40 and Emi 33 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Pin is ahead of Emi on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Article 11 Technical Documentation at Emi 28 to Pin 30. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Emi 18, Pin 35) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 40% of the weighted advantage Pin holds 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
Pin
Pin is an AI recruiting agent that searches a database of 850M+ candidate profiles, scores and ranks candidates for fit, can automatically screen out non-matches (each with a one-line reason), and runs outreach and interview scheduling.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Pin 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 | Pin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2024 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Pin 35
3.1 weighted points to Pin
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Pin 45
1.2 weighted points to Pin
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Pin 50
0.9 weighted points to Pin
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Pin 30
0.8 weighted points to Pin
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Pin 50
0.7 weighted points to Pin
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Pin 55
0.6 weighted points to Pin
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Pin 30
0.4 weighted points to Pin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 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 -7.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Pin.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Pin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 35 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 40 (F) | -7 | -7.6 |
§ 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 | Pin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 32 | 5 | 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; Pin has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 5 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 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 37 for Pin, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pin 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