Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Thomas International
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
Concerning
ATS-integrated
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Greenhouse leads Thomas International on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Greenhouse (ATS-integrated) opens a 19-point lead on Thomas International (Assessment), 67 (D) to 48 (F). Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria, Thomas International none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Greenhouse 64 to Thomas International 60. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Greenhouse 86, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- Thomas International0
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency86 vs 43
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Thomas International is in scope of
| Record | Greenhouse | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1981 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight40% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Thomas International437.7 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight65% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Thomas International544.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight76% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Thomas International402.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight86% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Thomas International511.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight93% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42Thomas International331.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight98% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Thomas International571.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Thomas International600.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +19.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Thomas International, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 54 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 43 | +43 | +7.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 57 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 51 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 60 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 67D | 48F | +19 | +19.2 |
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 | Greenhouse | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 Greenhouse 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 Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse 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.