Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Thomas International
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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
3 points separate Thomas International and hackajob.
Thomas International holds a 3-point edge over hackajob under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to hackajob and Thomas International, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Thomas International holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 20, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 91% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob3
- Thomas International3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 43
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | hackajob | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 1981 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight65% of the movement so far
hackajob20Thomas International434.1 weighted points to Thomas International
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight84% of the movement so far
hackajob60Thomas International541.2 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
hackajob55Thomas International510.5 weighted points to hackajob
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight95% of the movement so far
hackajob38Thomas International400.2 weighted points to Thomas International
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight98% of the movement so far
hackajob32Thomas International330.1 weighted points to Thomas International
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob58Thomas International570.1 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Thomas International, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 48F | -3 | -2.7 |
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 | hackajob | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 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 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob 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.