§ The result
1 point separates Thomas International and Covey.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Covey (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Covey leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Covey — Covey 72, Thomas International 43, on an 18% weight — which is 98% of the weighted advantage Covey holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Covey
Covey is an AI recruiting platform whose Covey Scout product trains generative-AI bots from plain-language hiring criteria to source, evaluate, and rank candidate profiles for outbound sourcing and inbound applicant screening.
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
Covey is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Covey | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Covey 72 · Thomas International 43
5.2 weighted points to Covey
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Covey 40 · Thomas International 54
2.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Covey 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Covey 30 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Covey 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Covey 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Covey 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Covey
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Covey minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Covey | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 72 | 43 | +29 | +5.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -0.8 |
§ 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 | Covey | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Covey has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 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 Covey sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 11 for Covey, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Covey 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