§ The result
Thomas International leads HighMatch by 5 points.
Thomas International finishes 5 points ahead of HighMatch under rubric v1.0, 48 to 43, both scored as Assessment entries. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while HighMatch leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HighMatch 30, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
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
HighMatch and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HighMatch | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2005 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HighMatch 30 · Thomas International 43
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HighMatch 45 · Thomas International 54
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HighMatch 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to HighMatch
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HighMatch 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HighMatch 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HighMatch 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -4.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HighMatch minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | HighMatch | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 54 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 48 (F) | -5 | -4.4 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 31 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 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 HighMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HighMatch 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