§ The result
Thomas International leads Mercor on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 25 points between Thomas International (Assessment) and Mercor (Screening): 48 for Thomas International, 23 for Mercor. Thomas International leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them; Mercor leads none. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Data Governance Disclosure (Mercor 22, Thomas International 57) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Mercor 22, Thomas International 54), the second being 26% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Mercor
Mercor is an AI talent platform that runs automated 20-minute AI video interviews and semantic resume/profile matching to vet, score, and place candidates and expert contractors, and offers an enterprise applicant-screening product that scores employers' applicant pools against role rubrics with pass/fail recommendations.
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
Mercor is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Mercor | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2023 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Mercor 22 · Thomas International 54
6.4 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Mercor 10 · Thomas International 43
5.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Mercor 22 · Thomas International 57
5.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Mercor 20 · Thomas International 40
2.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Mercor 20 · Thomas International 33
1.9 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Mercor 40 · Thomas International 60
1.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Mercor 42 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -24.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -25 beside that -24.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Mercor minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Mercor | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 22 | 54 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 10 | 43 | -33 | -5.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 33 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 22 | 57 | -35 | -5.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 51 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 20 | 40 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 60 | -20 | -1.6 |
| Total | 100% | 23 (F) | 48 (F) | -25 | -24.6 |
§ 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 | Mercor | 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% | 1 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 10 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Mercor has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 8 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 33 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Mercor, across 4 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Mercor 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