§ The result
Thomas International takes the total, Gloat takes more of the criteria.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Gloat (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Gloat leads more of the criteria than Thomas International — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Thomas International leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Thomas International. Human Oversight Design is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Gloat — Gloat 62, Thomas International 51, on a 12% weight — which is 71% of the weighted advantage Gloat holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Gloat
Gloat is an AI-powered internal talent marketplace and "agentic HR" platform that matches an employer's existing employees to internal job openings, gigs, projects, mentorships, and learning based on inferred skills and career goals.
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
Gloat is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Gloat | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Gloat 62 · Thomas International 51
1.3 weighted points to Gloat
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Gloat 48 · Thomas International 54
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Gloat 38 · Thomas International 43
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Gloat 28 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Gloat 42 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Gloat
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Gloat 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Gloat
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Gloat 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Gloat
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gloat minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Gloat | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 51 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -1.0 |
§ 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 | Gloat | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 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% | 21 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Gloat has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 8 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Gloat, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gloat last reviewed
- August 2, 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