§ The result
4 points separate Thomas International and Emmersion.
Within the Assessment cohort, Thomas International edges Emmersion by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 44. Thomas International leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Emmersion leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Emmersion 28, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 61% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Emmersion
Emmersion, Rosetta Stone's assessment division within IXL Learning, sells AI-scored adaptive TrueNorth speaking and writing tests and WebCAPE reading and grammar exams. They rate language proficiency on a 0-10 scale mapped to CEFR and ACTFL and are used for pre-employment screening, checking employees' language skills and placing students.
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
Emmersion and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emmersion | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emmersion 28 · Thomas International 43
2.7 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emmersion 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emmersion 57 · Thomas International 54
0.6 weighted points to Emmersion
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emmersion 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emmersion 53 · Thomas International 51
0.2 weighted points to Emmersion
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emmersion 38 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emmersion minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Emmersion | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 43 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 53 | 51 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 48 (F) | -4 | -3.6 |
§ 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 | Emmersion | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 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% | 6 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 35 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Emmersion has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 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 Emmersion sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Emmersion, across 5 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emmersion 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