§ The result
Radancy leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Radancy, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 41 and Emi, filed under Screening, on 33, 8 points apart. Radancy takes all 7 criteria from Emi without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Post-Market Monitoring, Emi 35 to Radancy 36. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 28, Radancy 42, 20% weight), is only 34% of the weighted advantage Radancy 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Radancy 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. Only Radancy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Radancy 42
2.8 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Radancy 58
2.1 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Radancy 57
1.6 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Radancy 60
1.0 weighted points to Radancy
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Radancy 28
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
18% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Radancy 20
0.4 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Radancy 36
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 20 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 41 (F) | -8 | -8.4 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 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 | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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