§ The result
1 point separates Oracle Recruiting and Thomas International.
Oracle Recruiting (ATS-integrated) edges Thomas International (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48. Oracle Recruiting leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Thomas International leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Thomas International — Oracle Recruiting 30, Thomas International 43, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Oracle Recruiting
Oracle Recruiting (part of Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM, formerly Oracle Recruiting Cloud) is an enterprise applicant tracking system whose embedded AI suggests and ranks candidates, finds similar candidates, and generates 0-5 generative-AI match ratings against job requisitions to assist recruiters.
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
Oracle Recruiting 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 | Oracle Recruiting | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1977 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Oracle Recruiting 30 · Thomas International 43
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Oracle Recruiting 60 · Thomas International 54
1.2 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Oracle Recruiting 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Oracle Recruiting 60 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Oracle Recruiting 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Oracle Recruiting 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Oracle Recruiting
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Oracle Recruiting minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Oracle Recruiting | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 48 (F) | +1 | +0.9 |
§ 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 | Oracle Recruiting | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Oracle Recruiting has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 4 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 Oracle Recruiting, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Oracle Recruiting 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.