§ The result
2 points separate Thomas International and Brainner.
Thomas International holds a 2-point edge over Brainner under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Brainner takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Thomas International, whose share includes Data Governance Disclosure. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Brainner 45, Thomas International 40) and Data Governance Disclosure at 15% (Brainner 53, Thomas International 57), the second being 31% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
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
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Brainner | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2023 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Thomas International 57
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Thomas International 54
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Brainner 42 · Thomas International 43
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.5 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 -1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 43 | -1 | -0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 57 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 51 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.3 |
§ 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 | Brainner | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | 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% | 4 | 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% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 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 Brainner sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner 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