§ The result
The Predictive Index leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, The Predictive Index (Assessment) opens a 15-point lead on Emi (Screening), 48 to 33. Of the 7 criteria Emi wins none, and the narrowest lead The Predictive Index holds is on Human Oversight Design, Emi 44 to The Predictive Index 52. The advantage The Predictive Index holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 18, The Predictive Index 45, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 32% of the weighted points The Predictive Index gains 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
The Predictive Index
The Predictive Index provides validated behavioral and cognitive psychometric assessments used to screen, hire, and develop employees and design teams, alongside AI-assisted talent-management software.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, The Predictive Index under Assessment 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. Only The Predictive Index is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | The Predictive Index |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1955 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · The Predictive Index 45
4.9 weighted points to The Predictive Index
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · The Predictive Index 50
4.4 weighted points to The Predictive Index
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · The Predictive Index 55
1.6 weighted points to The Predictive Index
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · The Predictive Index 35
1.5 weighted points to The Predictive Index
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · The Predictive Index 52
1.0 weighted points to The Predictive Index
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · The Predictive Index 43
1.0 weighted points to The Predictive Index
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · The Predictive Index 60
1.0 weighted points to The Predictive Index
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus The Predictive Index.
| Category | Weight | Emi | The Predictive Index | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 45 | -27 | -4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 48 (F) | -15 | -15.3 |
§ 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 | The Predictive Index | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 18 | 6 | 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; The Predictive Index has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 24 for The Predictive Index, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- The Predictive Index 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