§ The result
Thomas International leads Intervue.io by 17 points.
Thomas International finishes 17 points clear of Intervue.io under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 31 — across the Assessment and Video interview cohorts. Intervue.io takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Thomas International, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Intervue.io 12, Thomas International 43, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Intervue.io
Intervue.io runs outsourced, recorded technical interviews through a network of vetted engineer-interviewers and also sells AI screening: an agent that phones or interviews candidates by voice or avatar and returns scored summaries, AI scoring of resumes and recorded video answers, and a built-in ATS.
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
Intervue.io 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 | Intervue.io | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | GB |
| Founded | 2020 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Intervue.io 12 · Thomas International 43
5.6 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Intervue.io 28 · Thomas International 54
5.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Intervue.io 38 · Thomas International 57
2.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Intervue.io 22 · Thomas International 33
1.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Intervue.io 30 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Intervue.io 50 · Thomas International 60
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Intervue.io 54 · Thomas International 51
0.4 weighted points to Intervue.io
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -16.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Intervue.io minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Intervue.io | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 54 | -26 | -5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 43 | -31 | -5.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 33 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 38 | 57 | -19 | -2.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 51 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 31 (F) | 48 (F) | -17 | -16.9 |
§ 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 | Intervue.io | 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% | 5 | 1 | — | 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% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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% | 30 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Intervue.io has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 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; some documentation or audit rows for Intervue.io sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Intervue.io, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Intervue.io 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.