§ The result
Willo leads Emi on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Willo scores 41 and Emi 33 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Video interview and Screening cohorts. Willo leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Emi is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Willo leads is Post-Market Monitoring, Emi 35 to Willo 36. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (Emi 44, Willo 62) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Emi 18, Willo 30), 26% of the weighted advantage Willo builds 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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Willo under Video interview 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 Willo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | AR | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Willo 30
2.2 weighted points to Willo
12% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Willo 62
2.2 weighted points to Willo
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Willo 38
2.0 weighted points to Willo
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Willo 53
1.3 weighted points to Willo
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Willo 54
0.5 weighted points to Willo
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Willo 36
0.1 weighted points to Willo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 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 -8.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Willo.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 30 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 53 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 62 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 41 (F) | -8 | -8.3 |
§ 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 | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 9 | 5 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo 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