§ The result
2 points separate Indeed and Thomas International.
Indeed holds a 2-point edge over Thomas International under rubric v1.0, 50 to 48, across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Indeed, with 1 level: Indeed is ahead on Human Oversight Design and Thomas International on Bias Audit Transparency. Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Indeed 63, Thomas International 51 — and at a 12% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Indeed holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Indeed
Job marketplace whose employer-side AI (the Talent Scout agent, Sourcing Assistant, Smart Screening and candidate matching) sources, ranks and scores candidates from Indeed's profile pool and applicant flow and drafts outreach to them.
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
Indeed is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Indeed | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2004 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Indeed 63 · Thomas International 51
1.4 weighted points to Indeed
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Indeed 38 · Thomas International 43
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Indeed 58 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Indeed
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Indeed 38 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Indeed
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Indeed 64 · Thomas International 60
0.3 weighted points to Indeed
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Indeed 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Indeed
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Indeed minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Indeed | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 51 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 60 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 50 (F) | 48 (F) | +2 | +2.6 |
§ 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 | Indeed | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 2 | Sources on a separate 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 36 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Indeed has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 36 with a source URL, 5 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 Indeed sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Indeed, across 5 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Indeed 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