HomeCompareLinkedIn Recruiter vs Thomas International

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

LinkedIn Recruiter vs Thomas International

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

LinkedIn Recruiter leads Thomas International on all 7 criteria.

LinkedIn Recruiter scores 57 and Thomas International 48 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. LinkedIn Recruiter is ahead of Thomas International on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at LinkedIn Recruiter 38 to Thomas International 33. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (LinkedIn Recruiter 66, Thomas International 51) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (LinkedIn Recruiter 67, Thomas International 54), 29% of the weighted advantage LinkedIn Recruiter builds across the 7 criteria it leads.

§ The record

LinkedIn Recruiter is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordLinkedIn RecruiterThomas International
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded20021981

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 29% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    LinkedIn Recruiter 67 · Thomas International 54

    2.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  2. 12% weight · 49% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    LinkedIn Recruiter 66 · Thomas International 51

    1.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  3. 18% weight · 63% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Thomas International 43

    1.3 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  4. 12% weight · 76% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Thomas International 40

    1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  5. 15% weight · 85% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    LinkedIn Recruiter 38 · Thomas International 33

    0.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  6. 15% weight · 93% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    LinkedIn Recruiter 62 · Thomas International 57

    0.8 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

  7. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    LinkedIn Recruiter 68 · Thomas International 60

    0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is LinkedIn Recruiter minus Thomas International.

CategoryWeightLinkedIn RecruiterThomas InternationalΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%6754+13+2.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%5043+7+1.3
FRIA Support15%3833+5+0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%6257+5+0.8
Human Oversight Design12%6651+15+1.8
Post-Market Monitoring12%5040+10+1.2
Customer Documentation8%6860+8+0.6
Total100%57 (F)48 (F)+9+9.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightLinkedIn RecruiterThomas International
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%41Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%50Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%60Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%61Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%61Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%345Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain116Sources on the vendor's own domain

LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 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 LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
LinkedIn Recruiter 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.