§ The result
Thomas International takes the total, HiBob takes more of the criteria.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges HiBob (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46. HiBob leads more of the criteria than Thomas International — 5 to 1 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Thomas International leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Thomas International. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HiBob 20, Thomas International 43) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 100% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 1 criterion it leads.
Vendor profile
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
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
HiBob is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiBob | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiBob 20 · Thomas International 43
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiBob 63 · Thomas International 51
1.4 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiBob 47 · Thomas International 40
0.8 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiBob 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to HiBob
20% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiBob 55 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to HiBob
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiBob 61 · Thomas International 60
0.1 weighted points to HiBob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.0 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 -1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiBob minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | HiBob | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 51 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 40 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 61 | 60 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.3 |
§ 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 | HiBob | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 6 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 29 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiBob 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