§ The result
Sense leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Sense scores 58 to 33 for Emi, a 25-point gap between two Screening entries. Emi leads none of the 7 criteria, and Sense is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 18, Sense 72, 18% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage Sense 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Emi and Sense are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Scheduling and Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Emi | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Sense 72
9.7 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Sense 60
6.4 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Sense 64
2.4 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Sense 58
2.1 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Sense 52
2.0 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Sense 38
1.9 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Sense 62
1.1 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -25.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -25 beside that -25.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 60 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 72 | -54 | -9.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 64 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 58 (F) | -25 | -25.7 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 16 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense last reviewed
- June 7, 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
Scored against