§ The result
Thomas International leads impress.ai by 10 points.
Thomas International sits 10 points above impress.ai under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 38 — with Thomas International filed under Assessment and impress.ai under Screening. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while impress.ai leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (impress.ai 22, Thomas International 43) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (impress.ai 35, Thomas International 54), the second being 37% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
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
impress.ai is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | impress.ai | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
impress.ai 35 · Thomas International 54
3.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
impress.ai 22 · Thomas International 43
3.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
impress.ai 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
impress.ai 32 · Thomas International 40
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
impress.ai 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
impress.ai 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
impress.ai 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is impress.ai minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | impress.ai | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 54 | -19 | -3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 48 (F) | -10 | -10.1 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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