§ The result
Thomas International takes the total, 365Talents takes more of the criteria.
Thomas International holds a 2-point edge over 365Talents under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. 365Talents leads more of the criteria, 5 against 2 for Thomas International, yet Thomas International takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — 365Talents 18, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 95% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
365Talents
365Talents is an AI skills-intelligence and internal talent-marketplace platform that infers employees' skills from HRIS records, CVs, documents and collaboration tools, then matches them to internal jobs, projects, gigs, mentors, learning and succession pipelines.
Vendor profile
Thomas International
Thomas International provides psychometric and aptitude assessments (behaviour/DISC, cognitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence) with an AI coaching layer, used for hiring, candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
365Talents is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | 365Talents | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
365Talents 18 · Thomas International 43
4.5 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
365Talents 63 · Thomas International 54
1.8 weighted points to 365Talents
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
365Talents 57 · Thomas International 51
0.7 weighted points to 365Talents
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
365Talents 44 · Thomas International 40
0.5 weighted points to 365Talents
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
365Talents 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to 365Talents
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
365Talents 57 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
365Talents 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to 365Talents
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is 365Talents minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | 365Talents | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 54 | +9 | +1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 43 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 51 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.3 |
§ 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 | 365Talents | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
365Talents has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for 365Talents, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- 365Talents last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Thomas International 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