§ The result
Thomas International leads HireLogic on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International sits 14 points above HireLogic under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 34 — with Thomas International filed under Assessment and HireLogic under Video interview. Thomas International takes all 7 criteria and HireLogic none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, HireLogic 48 to Thomas International 51. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HireLogic 15, Thomas International 43, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HireLogic
HireLogic joins phone, video and in-person interviews to transcribe them and generate AI notes, job-description coverage, candidate insights and flags for potentially discriminatory interviewer questions, and also offers an asynchronous AI interview agent that scores candidates on relevance and depth of knowledge.
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
HireLogic is filed under Video interview AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | HireLogic | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | Not recorded | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HireLogic 15 · Thomas International 43
5.0 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HireLogic 42 · Thomas International 54
2.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HireLogic 45 · Thomas International 57
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HireLogic 28 · Thomas International 40
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HireLogic 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HireLogic 45 · Thomas International 60
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HireLogic 48 · Thomas International 51
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -13.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HireLogic minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | HireLogic | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 54 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 15 | 43 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 51 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 60 | -15 | -1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 34 (F) | 48 (F) | -14 | -13.4 |
§ 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 | HireLogic | 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% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 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% | 5 | 0 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HireLogic has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for HireLogic, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HireLogic 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.