§ The result
Thomas International leads micro1 on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International, filed under Assessment, comes out 12 points above micro1, filed under Screening: 48 against 36 under rubric v1.0. Thomas International leads every one of the 7 criteria, micro1 none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, micro1 48 to Thomas International 51. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (micro1 20, Thomas International 43, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
micro1
Zara, micro1's LLM-based AI interviewer, runs recorded, adaptive spoken interviews (with optional coding exercises and automated proctoring) and returns per-skill proficiency ratings, soft-skill ratings and a proctoring score; micro1 uses it to certify experts for its own AI-training talent network, and employers can use it through a client portal and API.
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
micro1 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, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | micro1 | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2022 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
micro1 20 · Thomas International 43
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
micro1 45 · Thomas International 57
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
micro1 25 · Thomas International 40
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
micro1 22 · Thomas International 33
1.6 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
micro1 45 · Thomas International 60
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
micro1 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
micro1 48 · Thomas International 51
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is micro1 minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | micro1 | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 33 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 51 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 25 | 40 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 60 | -15 | -1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 48 (F) | -12 | -11.8 |
§ 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 | micro1 | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
micro1 has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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; some documentation or audit rows for micro1 sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for micro1, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- micro1 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.
§ Where next