§ The result
Thomas International leads Loxo on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Thomas International sits 11 points above Loxo under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 37 — with Thomas International filed under Assessment and Loxo under Sourcing. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Loxo is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Thomas International leads is Human Oversight Design, Loxo 50 to Thomas International 51. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Loxo 30, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Loxo
Loxo is an AI-native talent-intelligence platform that combines candidate sourcing, a recruiting CRM, and an applicant tracking system, using proprietary ranking models and a self-built talent graph of 800M+ people to source, rank, and match candidates for recruiting and staffing firms.
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
Loxo is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Thomas International is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Loxo | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Loxo 30 · Thomas International 54
4.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Loxo 20 · Thomas International 43
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Loxo 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Loxo 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Loxo 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Loxo 50 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Loxo minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Loxo | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 54 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 51 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 48 (F) | -11 | -10.7 |
§ 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 | Loxo | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Loxo has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Loxo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Loxo 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