§ The result
Workstream leads Emi on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Workstream scores 39 and Emi 33 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the Screening cohort. Workstream 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 Workstream leads is Bias Audit Transparency, Emi 18 to Workstream 20. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (Emi 44, Workstream 61) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Emi 28, Workstream 40), 39% of the weighted advantage Workstream 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Emi and Workstream are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Workstream is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Workstream 40
2.4 weighted points to Workstream
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Workstream 61
2.0 weighted points to Workstream
8% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Workstream 56
0.6 weighted points to Workstream
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Workstream 47
0.4 weighted points to Workstream
18% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Workstream 20
0.4 weighted points to Workstream
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Workstream 27
0.3 weighted points to Workstream
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 20 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 27 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 47 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 61 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 39 (F) | -6 | -6.2 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 6 | 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Emi and Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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