§ The result
2 points separate Thomas International and Darwinbox.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Darwinbox (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Thomas International: Thomas International is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Darwinbox on Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Darwinbox 28, Thomas International 43) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 68% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Darwinbox
Darwinbox is an enterprise HCM suite whose recruitment module uses Darwinbox Sense AI (now sold inside its Cortex agent platform) to parse resumes, stack-rank and recommend candidates with stated fit reasoning, run screening and shortlisting agents, and give candidates an assistant for job matching, interview details and FAQs.
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
Darwinbox is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Darwinbox | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Darwinbox 28 · Thomas International 43
2.7 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Darwinbox 60 · Thomas International 54
1.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Darwinbox 35 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Darwinbox 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Darwinbox
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Darwinbox 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Darwinbox 57 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Darwinbox 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Darwinbox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Darwinbox minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Darwinbox | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 43 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -2.2 |
§ 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 | Darwinbox | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 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 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Darwinbox 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