§ The result
Thomas International leads Fetcher by 11 points.
Thomas International sits 11 points above Fetcher under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 37 — with Thomas International filed under Assessment and Fetcher under Sourcing. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Fetcher leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 27, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
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
Fetcher 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 | Fetcher | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fetcher 27 · Thomas International 54
5.4 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · Thomas International 43
2.7 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fetcher 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fetcher 35 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · Thomas International 60
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Fetcher
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 54 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 43 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 48 (F) | -11 | -10.5 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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 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% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher 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