§ The result
Thomas International leads eSkill by 7 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and eSkill 41 under rubric v1.0 — a 7-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. eSkill takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Thomas International, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (eSkill 25, Thomas International 43) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 45% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
eSkill
eSkill is a pre-employment testing platform with auto-scored skills, cognitive and behavioral tests and human-rated one-way video interviews, plus an optional Proctorio-powered AI proctoring add-on that gives each candidate a suspicion score and a Claude-based "Linea" layer that drafts assessments from job descriptions.
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
eSkill and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | eSkill | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2003 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
eSkill 25 · Thomas International 43
3.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
eSkill 47 · Thomas International 57
1.5 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
eSkill 48 · Thomas International 54
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
eSkill 57 · Thomas International 51
0.7 weighted points to eSkill
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
eSkill 36 · Thomas International 40
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
eSkill 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
eSkill 56 · Thomas International 60
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is eSkill minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | eSkill | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 43 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 47 | 57 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 51 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 40 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 48 (F) | -7 | -6.5 |
§ 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 | eSkill | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
eSkill has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 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 eSkill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for eSkill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- eSkill 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