Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Emi vs Pulsifi
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.
Substantial gaps
Screening
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Emi and Pulsifi tie at 33.
Emi, filed under Screening, and Pulsifi, filed under Assessment, tie at 33 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Emi leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Pulsifi 3, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Emi 44, Pulsifi 55 — and at a 12% weight it carries 63% of the weighted advantage Pulsifi holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Emi3
- Pulsifi3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Human Oversight Design44 vs 55
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Human Oversight Design12% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Pulsifi under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Pulsifi is in scope of
| Record | Emi | Pulsifi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | SG |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Human Oversight Design
12% weight36% of the movement so far
Emi44Pulsifi551.3 weighted points to Pulsifi
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight59% of the movement so far
Emi35Pulsifi280.8 weighted points to Emi
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight75% of the movement so far
Emi44Pulsifi400.6 weighted points to Emi
- 4
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight86% of the movement so far
Emi28Pulsifi300.4 weighted points to Pulsifi
- 5
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight96% of the movement so far
Emi18Pulsifi200.4 weighted points to Pulsifi
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Emi48Pulsifi460.2 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Pulsifi, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Pulsifi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 20 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 46 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 33F | 33F | - | -0.5 |
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 | Pulsifi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 2 | 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 | 26 | 7 | 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; Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 7 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 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pulsifi 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.