§ The result
Thomas International leads Pillar on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International scores 48 and Pillar 40 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Thomas International is ahead of Pillar on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at Pillar 30 to Thomas International 33. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Pillar 42, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Pillar
Pillar (now "AI Interview Companion by Employ") is an interview intelligence platform that records and transcribes job interviews, generates AI interview guides and highlight clips, and surfaces candidate insights and interviewer-coaching 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
Pillar 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 | Pillar | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pillar 42 · Thomas International 54
2.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pillar 45 · Thomas International 57
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pillar 38 · Thomas International 43
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pillar 33 · Thomas International 40
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pillar 50 · Thomas International 60
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pillar 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pillar 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 -7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 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 Pillar minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Pillar | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 54 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 57 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 51 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -0.8 |
| 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 | Pillar | 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% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 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% | 12 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Pillar has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 7 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 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Pillar, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pillar 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