§ The result
Thomas International leads Mercer | Mettl on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International scores 48 and Mercer | Mettl 42 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Thomas International is ahead of Mercer | Mettl on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Bias Audit Transparency at Mercer | Mettl 42 to Thomas International 43. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Mercer | Mettl 38, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 53% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Mercer | Mettl
Mercer | Mettl is an online talent assessment and remote-proctoring platform offering psychometric, aptitude, coding, and skills tests plus AI-assisted exam proctoring and scoring for hiring, certification, and L&D.
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
Mercer | Mettl and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Mercer | Mettl | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | IN | GB |
| Founded | 2010 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Mercer | Mettl 38 · Thomas International 54
3.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Mercer | Mettl 28 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Mercer | Mettl 45 · Thomas International 51
0.7 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Mercer | Mettl 52 · Thomas International 60
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Mercer | Mettl 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Mercer | Mettl 38 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Mercer | Mettl 42 · Thomas International 43
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Mercer | Mettl minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Mercer | Mettl | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 54 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 43 | -1 | -0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 51 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -6.0 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Mercer | Mettl | 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% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 9 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Mercer | Mettl has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 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 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for Mercer | Mettl, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Mercer | Mettl last reviewed
- June 7, 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