§ The result
ADP and Thomas International tie at 48.
ADP (ATS-integrated) and Thomas International (Assessment) tie at 48 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. ADP leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Thomas International 3, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — ADP 28, Thomas International 33 — and at a 15% weight it carries 68% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
ADP
ADP is an enterprise human capital management and payroll provider whose recruiting suite uses AI to parse, rank, and match job applicants via its Candidate Relevancy tool, ADP Assist generative-AI assistant/job-description generator, and skills intelligence.
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
ADP is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | ADP | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1949 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 27% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
ADP 28 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
ADP 45 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to ADP
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
ADP 46 · Thomas International 43
0.5 weighted points to ADP
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
ADP 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to ADP
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
ADP 53 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
ADP 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is ADP minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | ADP | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 53 | 54 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 46 | 43 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 48 (F) | - | +0.5 |
§ 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 | ADP | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 18 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
ADP has 23 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 5 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 23 for ADP, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- ADP last reviewed
- July 17, 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