§ The result
Wonderlic leads Emi by 10 points.
Wonderlic sits 10 points above Emi under rubric v1.0 — 43 against 33 — with Wonderlic filed under Assessment and Emi under Screening. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Wonderlic, with 1 level: Wonderlic is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Emi on Data Governance Disclosure. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Emi 18, Wonderlic 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 46% of the weighted advantage Wonderlic holds across the 4 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Wonderlic under Assessment 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 Wonderlic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Wonderlic 48
5.4 weighted points to Wonderlic
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Wonderlic 52
4.8 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Wonderlic 52
1.0 weighted points to Wonderlic
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Wonderlic 38
0.9 weighted points to Emi
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Wonderlic 55
0.6 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Wonderlic 33
0.2 weighted points to Emi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 52 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 48 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 43 (F) | -10 | -10.6 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 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 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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