§ The result
Findem leads Thomas International by 10 points.
Findem sits 10 points above Thomas International under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 48 — with Findem filed under Sourcing and Thomas International under Assessment. Findem leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Thomas International leads 1, including Customer Documentation, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Findem 83, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 71% of the weighted advantage Findem holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
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
Findem 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, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Findem | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · Thomas International 43
7.2 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 43 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 48 (F) | +10 | +9.9 |
§ 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 | Findem | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 12 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 Findem sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem 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