§ The result
1 point separates Infor Talent Science and Thomas International.
Within the Assessment cohort, Infor Talent Science edges Thomas International by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48. The 7 criteria split 3 to 2 in favour of Infor Talent Science, with 2 level: Infor Talent Science is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Thomas International on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Infor Talent Science (Infor Talent Science 58, Thomas International 54), 47% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Post-Market Monitoring, Infor Talent Science 45 to Thomas International 40.
Vendor profile
Infor Talent Science
Infor Talent Science is a cloud-based pre-hire behavioral and cognitive assessment platform. It scores candidates against patented machine-learning 'Performance Profiles' built from the behavior and performance data of an employer's successful incumbents, and gives hiring teams fit scores, recommendations and interview questions that are used to rank and route applicants.
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
Infor Talent Science and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Infor Talent Science | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2002 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Infor Talent Science 58 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Infor Talent Science 45 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Infor Talent Science 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Infor Talent Science 42 · Thomas International 43
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Infor Talent Science 50 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.0 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 +1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Infor Talent Science minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Infor Talent Science | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 43 | -1 | -0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 51 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 40 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 48 (F) | +1 | +1.4 |
§ 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 | Infor Talent Science | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | 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 domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Infor Talent Science 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