§ The result
Thomas International leads CodeSignal by 5 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and CodeSignal 43 under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Thomas International leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CodeSignal 38, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
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
CodeSignal 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 | CodeSignal | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Thomas International 54
3.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to CodeSignal
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Thomas International 43
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CodeSignal 38 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 54 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 43 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 48 (F) | -5 | -4.7 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 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 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 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