§ The result
4 points separate HiredScore and Thomas International.
HiredScore (Sourcing) edges Thomas International (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 52 to 48. HiredScore and Thomas International each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split HiredScore holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. HiredScore takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (HiredScore 65, Thomas International 54), which is 40% of the weighted advantage HiredScore holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, HiredScore 55 to Thomas International 43.
Vendor profile
HiredScore
AI-driven talent orchestration layer that ranks and routes candidates within an existing ATS. Acquired by Workday in 2024.
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
HiredScore is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Thomas International is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiredScore | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiredScore 65 · Thomas International 54
2.2 weighted points to HiredScore
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiredScore 55 · Thomas International 43
2.2 weighted points to HiredScore
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiredScore 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to HiredScore
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiredScore 35 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiredScore 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiredScore 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiredScore minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | HiredScore | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 54 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 55 | 43 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 48 (F) | +4 | +4.1 |
§ 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 | HiredScore | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 7 | 2 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HiredScore has 9 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 7 with a source URL, 2 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 HiredScore sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 26 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 9 for HiredScore, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiredScore last reviewed
- May 21, 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