§ The result
4 points separate Thomas International and Fountain.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Fountain (Screening) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 44. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Fountain leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fountain 30, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 52% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
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
Fountain is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Fountain | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fountain 30 · Thomas International 43
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fountain 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Fountain
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fountain 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fountain 52 · Thomas International 60
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fountain 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fountain 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 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 -3.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fountain minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Fountain | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 48 (F) | -4 | -3.7 |
§ 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 | Fountain | 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% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fountain 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