§ The result
Thomas International leads Oleeo by 8 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Oleeo 40 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Oleeo leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Oleeo 40, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
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
Oleeo 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 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Oleeo | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 1995 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Oleeo 40 · Thomas International 54
2.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Oleeo 45 · Thomas International 57
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Oleeo 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Oleeo 30 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Oleeo 40 · Thomas International 43
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Oleeo 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Oleeo
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Oleeo 55 · Thomas International 60
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Oleeo minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Oleeo | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 43 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 48 (F) | -8 | -7.5 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 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 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 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 Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Oleeo 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