§ The result
Thomas International leads Manatal by 7 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Manatal 41 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Manatal and Thomas International each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Thomas International holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Manatal 33, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
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
Manatal 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, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Manatal | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | TH | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Manatal 33 · Thomas International 54
4.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Manatal 22 · Thomas International 43
3.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Manatal 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Manatal 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Manatal 43 · Thomas International 40
0.4 weighted points to Manatal
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Manatal 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Manatal minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Manatal | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 54 | -21 | -4.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 33 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 40 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 48 (F) | -7 | -7.1 |
§ 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 | Manatal | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Manatal 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