§ The result
1 point separates Jobma and Thomas International.
Jobma (Video interview) edges Thomas International (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48. Jobma leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Human Oversight Design, while Thomas International leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jobma 60, Thomas International 51 — and at a 12% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Jobma holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Jobma
AI video interviewing platform offering one-way (pre-recorded), live, and agentic AI interviews with automated transcription and AI scoring of candidate video, audio, and written responses as recruiter decision-support.
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
Jobma 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 | Jobma | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jobma 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Jobma
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jobma 40 · Thomas International 43
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jobma 44 · Thomas International 40
0.5 weighted points to Jobma
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jobma 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Jobma
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jobma 55 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to Jobma
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jobma 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Jobma
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jobma 56 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.9 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 +1.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jobma minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Jobma | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 43 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 48 (F) | +1 | +1.5 |
§ 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 | Jobma | 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% | 1 | 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% | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 17 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Jobma has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 4 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Jobma, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jobma last reviewed
- July 17, 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