§ The result
4 points separate Phenom and Thomas International.
Phenom (Sourcing) edges Thomas International (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 52 to 48. Phenom leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Thomas International leads 3, including FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Phenom 75, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 77% of the weighted advantage Phenom holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
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
Phenom is filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | Phenom | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2010 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Phenom 75 · Thomas International 43
5.8 weighted points to Phenom
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Phenom 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Phenom 30 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Phenom 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Phenom
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Phenom 60 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Phenom
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Phenom 55 · Thomas International 60
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Phenom 55 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to Phenom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Phenom minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Phenom | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 75 | 43 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 48 (F) | +4 | +4.7 |
§ 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 | Phenom | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Phenom has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 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 27 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Phenom last reviewed
- May 21, 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