Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs Thomas International
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
Substantial gaps
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
Thomas International leads Harri by 7 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Harri 41 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Thomas International leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Harri leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 2 are level. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Thomas International (Harri 35, Thomas International 54), 46% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Bias Audit Transparency, Harri 22 to Thomas International 43.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri2
- Thomas International3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 43
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Harri 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 | Harri | 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
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight38% of the movement so far
Harri35Thomas International543.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight75% of the movement so far
Harri22Thomas International433.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight91% of the movement so far
Harri44Thomas International331.6 weighted points to Harri
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight99% of the movement so far
Harri52Thomas International570.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri52Thomas International510.1 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -6.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Thomas International, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 54 | -19 | -3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 33 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 48F | -7 | -6.6 |
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 | Harri | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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 | Sources 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% | 2 | 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% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 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 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri 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.