§ The result
Thomas International takes the total, Hogan Assessments takes more of the criteria.
Within the Assessment cohort, Thomas International edges Hogan Assessments by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Hogan Assessments leads more of the criteria than Thomas International — 4 to 2 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Thomas International leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Thomas International. Thomas International takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Hogan Assessments 50, Thomas International 54), which is 52% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Data Governance Disclosure, Hogan Assessments 52 to Thomas International 57.
Vendor profile
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
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
Hogan Assessments and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hogan Assessments | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1987 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hogan Assessments 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hogan Assessments 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hogan Assessments 36 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
18% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hogan Assessments 44 · Thomas International 43
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hogan Assessments 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hogan Assessments 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hogan Assessments minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Hogan Assessments | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 43 | +1 | +0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 36 | 33 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -0.6 |
§ 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 | Hogan Assessments | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 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 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hogan Assessments last reviewed
- July 17, 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