§ The result
Tengai leads Emi by 9 points.
Tengai finishes 9 points ahead of Emi under rubric v1.0, 42 to 33, both scored as Screening entries. Tengai leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Emi leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. The advantage Tengai holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 28, Tengai 45, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 35% of the weighted points Tengai gains across the 6 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
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
§ The record
Emi and Tengai are both filed under Screening 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 Tengai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2019 |
§ 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 · Tengai 45
3.4 weighted points to Tengai
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Tengai 33
2.7 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Tengai 58
1.7 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Tengai 50
0.9 weighted points to Tengai
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Tengai 55
0.6 weighted points to Tengai
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Tengai 28
0.4 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Tengai 33
0.2 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Tengai.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 33 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 42 (F) | -9 | -9.4 |
§ 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 | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | 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 | 37 | 5 | Sources 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; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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.
§ Where next
Scored against