§ The result
Codility leads Thomas International on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Codility scores 54 and Thomas International 48 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Codility leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Thomas International is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Codility leads is Bias Audit Transparency, Codility 45 to Thomas International 43. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Human Oversight Design (Codility 62, Thomas International 51) and FRIA Support at 15% (Codility 42, Thomas International 33), the second being 23% of the weighted advantage Codility holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Codility
Codility is a technical/coding assessment platform that screens and interviews software engineers with work-sample coding tests, live technical interviews, and integrity tooling including plagiarism and AI-use detection.
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
Codility 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 | Codility | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2009 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 23% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Thomas International 33
1.3 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Thomas International 51
1.3 weighted points to Codility
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Thomas International 54
1.2 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Thomas International 60
0.5 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Thomas International 43
0.4 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +5.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 43 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 51 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 48 (F) | +6 | +5.9 |
§ 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 | Codility | 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% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility last reviewed
- July 17, 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