Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Aon Assessment vs Thomas International
Aon Assessment
Aon Assessment Solutions (formerly cut-e) provides enterprise pre-hire psychometric assessments - ability, personality (ADEPT-15), situational-judgement, gamified cognitive (smartPredict/gridChallenge) tests and an AI-scored video interview tool (vidAssess-AI) - used to screen and rank job applicants at scale.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Thomas International leads Aon Assessment on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International sits 13 points above Aon Assessment under rubric v1.0, 48 against 35, with both filed under Assessment. Thomas International takes all 7 criteria from Aon Assessment without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is Human Oversight Design, Aon Assessment 45 to Thomas International 51. Data Governance Disclosure is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Aon Assessment 38, Thomas International 57, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 22% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Aon Assessment0
- Thomas International7
- Widest raw gap
- Data Governance Disclosure38 vs 57
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Data Governance Disclosure15% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Aon Assessment and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Aon Assessment | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | GB |
| Founded | 2002 | 1981 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight22% of the movement so far
Aon Assessment38Thomas International572.9 weighted points to Thomas International
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight45% of the movement so far
Aon Assessment40Thomas International542.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 3
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight63% of the movement so far
Aon Assessment30Thomas International432.3 weighted points to Thomas International
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight77% of the movement so far
Aon Assessment25Thomas International401.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight87% of the movement so far
Aon Assessment25Thomas International331.2 weighted points to Thomas International
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight94% of the movement so far
Aon Assessment48Thomas International601.0 weighted points to Thomas International
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Aon Assessment45Thomas International510.7 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Aon Assessment minus Thomas International, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Aon Assessment | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 57 | -19 | -2.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 51 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 40 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 35F | 48F | -13 | -12.7 |
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 | Aon Assessment | 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 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 11 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Aon Assessment has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 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 Aon Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Aon Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Aon Assessment last reviewed
- June 7, 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.