§ The result
3 points separate Thomas International and Cangrade.
Within the Assessment cohort, Thomas International edges Cangrade by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cangrade leads 2, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cangrade 35, Thomas International 43, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Thomas International 43
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Thomas International 40
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Thomas International 51
0.6 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Thomas International 54
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 51 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 48 (F) | -3 | -2.9 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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