§ The result
2 points separate Thomas International and Arctic Shores.
Within the Assessment cohort, Thomas International edges Arctic Shores by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46. Arctic Shores and Thomas International each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Thomas International holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Thomas International takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Arctic Shores 35, Thomas International 43), which is 42% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, Arctic Shores 30 to Thomas International 40.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
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
Arctic Shores 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 | Arctic Shores | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Thomas International 43
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Thomas International 51
0.6 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Thomas International 60
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Arctic Shores
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.7 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 -2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 51 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 60 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -2.2 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 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