§ The result
Avature and Thomas International tie at 48.
Avature (ATS-integrated) and Thomas International (Assessment) tie at 48 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Avature leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Thomas International 2, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Human Oversight Design, is both the widest raw gap (Avature 60, Thomas International 51) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 76% of the weighted advantage Avature holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Avature
Avature is an enterprise talent acquisition and talent management platform (recruiting CRM, ATS, onboarding and internal mobility) with built-in AI for semantic search, explainable weighted candidate matching and ranking, candidate fraud detection and configurable recruiting agents.
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
Avature 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 | Avature | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2004 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Avature 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Avature
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Avature 40 · Thomas International 43
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Avature 55 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to Avature
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Avature 32 · Thomas International 33
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Avature 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Avature
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.1 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 +0.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Avature minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Avature | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 43 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 48 (F) | - | +0.7 |
§ 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 | Avature | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | — | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 |
Avature 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 Avature 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 Avature, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Avature 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