§ The result
1 point separates Thomas International and Interviewer.AI.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Interviewer.AI (Video interview) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Thomas International leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Interviewer.AI leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Thomas International takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Interviewer.AI 35, Thomas International 43), which is 49% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Human Oversight Design, Interviewer.AI 60 to Thomas International 51.
Vendor profile
Interviewer.AI
Interviewer.AI is an asynchronous AI video interview platform that pre-screens and scores candidates by analyzing recorded video responses and resumes against role-specific success factors, producing an "AI Score" breakdown to help recruiters shortlist.
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
Interviewer.AI 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 | Interviewer.AI | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Interviewer.AI 35 · Thomas International 43
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Interviewer.AI 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Interviewer.AI 32 · Thomas International 40
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Interviewer.AI 60 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Interviewer.AI 52 · Thomas International 54
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Interviewer.AI 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Interviewer.AI
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Interviewer.AI 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.8 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 -1.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Interviewer.AI minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Interviewer.AI | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -1.1 |
§ 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 | Interviewer.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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Interviewer.AI has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Interviewer.AI, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Interviewer.AI last reviewed
- June 7, 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.