§ The result
1 point separates Thomas International and Crosschq.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Crosschq (Screening) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Crosschq and Thomas International each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Thomas International holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Human Oversight Design, and Crosschq holds it (Crosschq 62, Thomas International 51, 12% weight), worth 81% of the weighted advantage Crosschq builds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
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
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · Thomas International 51
1.3 weighted points to Crosschq
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · Thomas International 43
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.8 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 -0.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 51 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -0.5 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 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 Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq 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