§ The result
Cornerstone OnDemand leads Thomas International on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Cornerstone OnDemand scores 56 and Thomas International 48 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Cornerstone OnDemand 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 Cornerstone OnDemand leads is FRIA Support, Cornerstone OnDemand 35 to Thomas International 33. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cornerstone OnDemand 72, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage Cornerstone OnDemand holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cornerstone OnDemand
Cornerstone OnDemand is an enterprise talent-management and learning suite whose Cornerstone Galaxy platform uses AI-driven skills extraction and matching (including the acquired SkyHive Skills Models) to power recruiting, candidate screening, and workforce development.
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
Cornerstone OnDemand is filed under ATS-integrated 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, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cornerstone OnDemand | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1999 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cornerstone OnDemand 72 · Thomas International 54
3.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cornerstone OnDemand 58 · Thomas International 43
2.7 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cornerstone OnDemand 45 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cornerstone OnDemand 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cornerstone OnDemand 60 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cornerstone OnDemand 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +8.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.1 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 +8.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cornerstone OnDemand minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Cornerstone OnDemand | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 72 | 54 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 43 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 48 (F) | +8 | +8.1 |
§ 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 | Cornerstone OnDemand | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cornerstone OnDemand 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; some documentation or audit rows for Cornerstone OnDemand sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cornerstone OnDemand 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.