§ The result
Thomas International leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International sits 11 points above AmazingHiring under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 37 — with Thomas International filed under Assessment and AmazingHiring under Sourcing. Thomas International leads every one of the 7 criteria, AmazingHiring none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, AmazingHiring 30 to Thomas International 33. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (AmazingHiring 22, Thomas International 43) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (AmazingHiring 35, Thomas International 54), the second being 35% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
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
AmazingHiring 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 and NYC LL 144. Only Thomas International is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2011 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Thomas International 54
3.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Thomas International 43
3.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Thomas International 40
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Thomas International 60
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Thomas International 51
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 54 | -19 | -3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 51 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 48 (F) | -11 | -10.9 |
§ 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 | AmazingHiring | 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% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring 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