§ The result
The Predictive Index and Thomas International tie at 48.
The Predictive Index and Thomas International tie at 48 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. The Predictive Index leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Thomas International 2, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — The Predictive Index 50, Thomas International 54 — and at a 20% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
The Predictive Index
The Predictive Index provides validated behavioral and cognitive psychometric assessments used to screen, hire, and develop employees and design teams, alongside AI-assisted talent-management software.
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
The Predictive Index and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | The Predictive Index | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1955 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
The Predictive Index 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
The Predictive Index 45 · Thomas International 43
0.4 weighted points to The Predictive Index
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
The Predictive Index 43 · Thomas International 40
0.4 weighted points to The Predictive Index
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
The Predictive Index 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to The Predictive Index
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
The Predictive Index 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
The Predictive Index 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to The Predictive Index
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to 0.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that 0.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is The Predictive Index minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | The Predictive Index | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 43 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 43 | 40 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 48 (F) | - | 0.0 |
§ 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 | The Predictive Index | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | 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% | 2 | 1 | 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% | 18 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
The Predictive Index has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 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 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 24 for The Predictive Index, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- The Predictive Index last reviewed
- July 17, 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