§ The result
Thomas International leads HeroHunt.ai by 18 points.
Thomas International finishes 18 points clear of HeroHunt.ai under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 30 — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while HeroHunt.ai leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HeroHunt.ai 20, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage Thomas International builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HeroHunt.ai
HeroHunt.ai's AI Recruiter (launched as Uwi) searches a claimed 1 billion+ professional profiles, scores and ranks them against a job description with language models, and sends AI-personalised outreach to the candidates a user approves.
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
HeroHunt.ai is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HeroHunt.ai | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | GB |
| Founded | 2021 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HeroHunt.ai 20 · Thomas International 54
6.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HeroHunt.ai 10 · Thomas International 43
5.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HeroHunt.ai 45 · Thomas International 57
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HeroHunt.ai 28 · Thomas International 40
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HeroHunt.ai 48 · Thomas International 60
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HeroHunt.ai 27 · Thomas International 33
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HeroHunt.ai 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to HeroHunt.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -17.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -17.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HeroHunt.ai minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | HeroHunt.ai | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 20 | 54 | -34 | -6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 10 | 43 | -33 | -5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 33 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 48 (F) | -18 | -17.4 |
§ 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 | HeroHunt.ai | 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 | 1 | — | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HeroHunt.ai has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 HeroHunt.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 32 for HeroHunt.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HeroHunt.ai 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.
§ Where next