§ The result
Thomas International leads Cappfinity by 8 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Cappfinity 40 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Cappfinity leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cappfinity 36, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cappfinity
Cappfinity sells strengths-, skills- and cognitive-reasoning assessments, task-based job simulations, a digital assessment centre and an asynchronous video interview platform with optional AI-assisted scoring, and is used mainly for graduate and early-careers hiring.
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
Cappfinity and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | Cappfinity | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2005 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cappfinity 36 · Thomas International 54
3.6 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cappfinity 28 · Thomas International 43
2.7 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cappfinity 28 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cappfinity 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cappfinity 56 · Thomas International 60
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cappfinity 38 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cappfinity 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Cappfinity
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cappfinity minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Cappfinity | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 36 | 54 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 43 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 48 (F) | -8 | -8.2 |
§ 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 | Cappfinity | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 29 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cappfinity has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 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; some documentation or audit rows for Cappfinity sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Cappfinity, across 6 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cappfinity 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