§ The result
4 points separate Glider AI and Thomas International.
Glider AI holds a 4-point edge over Thomas International under rubric v1.0, 52 to 48, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Thomas International takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 3 for Glider AI, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Glider AI 68, Thomas International 43) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 85% of the weighted advantage Glider AI holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
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
Glider AI and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Glider AI | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2020 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Glider AI 68 · Thomas International 43
4.5 weighted points to Glider AI
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Glider AI 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Glider AI
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Glider AI 54 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Glider AI 52 · Thomas International 54
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Glider AI 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Glider AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +4.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 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 +4.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 43 | +25 | +4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 48 (F) | +4 | +4.4 |
§ 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 | Glider AI | 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% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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 Glider AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI 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