§ The result
Thomas International leads Alooba by 10 points.
Thomas International sits 10 points above Alooba under rubric v1.0, 48 against 38, with both filed under Assessment. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Thomas International: Thomas International is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Alooba on Human Oversight Design. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alooba 22, Thomas International 43, 18% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Thomas International builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
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
Alooba and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Thomas International 43
3.8 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Thomas International 54
2.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Thomas International 57
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Alooba
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Thomas International 40
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 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 -9.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 48 (F) | -10 | -9.3 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba 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