§ The result
Thomas International leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International finishes 15 points clear of Emi under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 33 — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Thomas International takes all 7 criteria and Emi none of them; the nearest contest is Post-Market Monitoring, Emi 35 to Thomas International 40. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Emi 28, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Emi
Emi runs AI agents on WhatsApp, SMS and Messenger that screen and score frontline job applicants against employer-set criteria, schedule interviews, and collect hiring documents and check them against Mexican government databases.
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
Emi 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, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AR | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Thomas International 54
5.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Thomas International 43
4.5 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Thomas International 57
1.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Thomas International 60
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -15.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -15.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 54 | -26 | -5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 43 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 51 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 48 (F) | -15 | -15.2 |
§ 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 | Emi | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 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 a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 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; some documentation or audit rows for Emi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi 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