Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Handshake vs Thomas International
Handshake
Handshake is an early-career recruiting network whose employer tools use AI to rank applicants against employer-set criteria, find and message matching students and graduates, and target job promotions.
Substantial gaps
Screening
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
2 points separate Handshake and Thomas International.
Handshake holds a 2-point edge over Thomas International under rubric v1.0, 50 to 48, across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Handshake leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Thomas International leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Handshake 52, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Handshake holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Handshake3
- Thomas International2
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency52 vs 43
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Handshake is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Thomas International is in scope of
| Record | Handshake | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 1981 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight32% of the movement so far
Handshake52Thomas International431.6 weighted points to Handshake
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight56% of the movement so far
Handshake48Thomas International541.2 weighted points to Thomas International
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight75% of the movement so far
Handshake48Thomas International401.0 weighted points to Handshake
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Handshake58Thomas International510.8 weighted points to Handshake
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Handshake30Thomas International330.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Handshake minus Thomas International, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Handshake | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 43 | +9 | +1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 50F | 48F | +2 | +1.8 |
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 | Handshake | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 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% | 27 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Handshake has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 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 Handshake sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Handshake, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Handshake 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.