§ The result
3 points separate Thomas International and Dover.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Dover (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45. Dover and Thomas International each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Thomas International holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Dover 34, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Dover
Dover is an AI recruiting platform for startups offering a free applicant tracking system, candidate sourcing via a LinkedIn/Copilot browser extension, OpenAI/Anthropic-powered 0-100 applicant scoring, and a fractional-recruiter marketplace.
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
Dover is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Thomas International is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Dover | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Dover 34 · Thomas International 54
4.0 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Dover 52 · Thomas International 43
1.6 weighted points to Dover
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Dover 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Dover 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Dover
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Dover 44 · Thomas International 40
0.5 weighted points to Dover
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Dover 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Dover minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Dover | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 34 | 54 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 43 | +9 | +1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 48 (F) | -3 | -2.6 |
§ 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 | Dover | 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 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% | 2 | 0 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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% | 13 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Dover has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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; some documentation or audit rows for Dover sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Dover, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Dover 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