§ The result
1 point separates Thomas International and Knockri.
Thomas International holds a 1-point edge over Knockri under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47, across the Assessment and Video interview cohorts. Knockri takes 3 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 4 for Thomas International, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Thomas International takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Knockri 35, Thomas International 43), which is 53% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Human Oversight Design, Knockri 60 to Thomas International 51.
Vendor profile
Knockri
Knockri runs asynchronous structured behavioural interviews that candidates answer by audio, video or text; it transcribes the answers, uses NLP models to score the work-related behaviours they describe against a skills framework, and produces per-skill scores and ranked shortlists.
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
Knockri is filed under Video interview AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | Knockri | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | CA | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Knockri 35 · Thomas International 43
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Knockri 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Knockri
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Knockri 35 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Knockri 55 · Thomas International 60
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Knockri 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Knockri
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Knockri 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Knockri 55 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to Knockri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 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 -1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Knockri minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Knockri | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -1.2 |
§ 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 | Knockri | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 36 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Knockri has 41 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 36 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 Knockri sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 41 for Knockri, across 7 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Knockri 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