§ The result
Pinpoint leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Pinpoint finishes 24 points clear of Emi under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 33 — across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Pinpoint leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Emi leads none. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 28, Pinpoint 72, 20% weight), is only 36% of the weighted advantage Pinpoint 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Pinpoint 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 | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | JE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Pinpoint 72
8.8 weighted points to Pinpoint
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Pinpoint 42
4.3 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Pinpoint 68
3.6 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Pinpoint 64
2.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Pinpoint 52
2.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Pinpoint 38
1.9 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Pinpoint 66
1.4 weighted points to Pinpoint
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -24.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -24 beside that -24.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 72 | -44 | -8.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 42 | -24 | -4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 68 | -24 | -3.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 64 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 66 | -18 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 57 (F) | -24 | -24.6 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint last reviewed
- July 17, 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