§ The result
Teamtailor leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Teamtailor, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 14 points above Emi, filed under Screening: 47 against 33 under rubric v1.0. Teamtailor takes all 7 criteria and Emi none of them; the nearest contest is Post-Market Monitoring, Emi 35 to Teamtailor 42. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Emi 28, Teamtailor 50, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 31% of the weighted advantage Teamtailor holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Teamtailor 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 | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Teamtailor 50
4.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 48% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Teamtailor 42
2.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Teamtailor 30
2.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Teamtailor 58
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Teamtailor 54
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Teamtailor 62
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Teamtailor 42
0.8 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 50 | -22 | -4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 30 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 42 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 54 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 47 (F) | -14 | -14.4 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 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 | 14 | 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; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor 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