§ The result
HeyMilo leads Thomas International on all 7 criteria.
HeyMilo sits 13 points above Thomas International under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 48 (F) — with HeyMilo filed under Screening and Thomas International under Assessment. HeyMilo leads every one of the 7 criteria, Thomas International none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Article 11 Technical Documentation, HeyMilo 58 to Thomas International 54. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HeyMilo 83, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage HeyMilo holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HeyMilo
HeyMilo is an AI recruiter for high-volume hiring whose voice and video AI agent conducts and scores async and live conversational screening interviews against recruiter-defined rubrics and syncs results to the customer's ATS.
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
HeyMilo is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HeyMilo | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2023 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HeyMilo 83 · Thomas International 43
7.2 weighted points to HeyMilo
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HeyMilo 64 · Thomas International 51
1.6 weighted points to HeyMilo
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HeyMilo 42 · Thomas International 33
1.3 weighted points to HeyMilo
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HeyMilo 58 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to HeyMilo
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HeyMilo 62 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to HeyMilo
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HeyMilo 46 · Thomas International 40
0.7 weighted points to HeyMilo
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HeyMilo 66 · Thomas International 60
0.5 weighted points to HeyMilo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HeyMilo minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | HeyMilo | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 43 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 51 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 46 | 40 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 48 (F) | +13 | +12.9 |
§ 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 | HeyMilo | 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% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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% | 18 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HeyMilo has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 3 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 HeyMilo sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for HeyMilo, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HeyMilo 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.
§ Where next