§ The result
1 point separates Thomas International and isolved.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges isolved (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Thomas International leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while isolved leads 3, including Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, and isolved holds it (isolved 47, Thomas International 40, 12% weight), worth 50% of the weighted advantage isolved builds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
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
isolved is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | isolved | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1986 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 22% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
isolved 47 · Thomas International 40
0.8 weighted points to isolved
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · Thomas International 57
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · Thomas International 43
0.4 weighted points to isolved
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
isolved 56 · Thomas International 60
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.8 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 -0.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | isolved | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 43 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 57 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 40 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -0.5 |
§ 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 | isolved | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 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 isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved 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