§ The result
Thomas International leads Entelo on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International finishes 15 points clear of Entelo under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 33 — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Thomas International leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Entelo leads none. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Entelo 30, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Entelo
Entelo is an AI-powered talent sourcing and diversity-recruiting platform that aggregates hundreds of millions of public candidate profiles and applies predictive machine-learning models to score, rank, and surface (including underrepresented) candidates for recruiters.
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
Entelo is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Entelo | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2011 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Entelo 30 · Thomas International 54
4.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Entelo 20 · Thomas International 43
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Entelo 45 · Thomas International 57
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Entelo 40 · Thomas International 60
1.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Entelo 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Entelo 42 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Entelo 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 Entelo minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Entelo | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 54 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 51 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -1.6 |
| 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 | Entelo | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 9 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Entelo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 8 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 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Entelo, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Entelo last reviewed
- June 7, 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