§ The result
Thomas International leads Pulsifi by 15 points.
Thomas International finishes 15 points clear of Pulsifi inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 48 against 33. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Pulsifi leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. The advantage Thomas International holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Pulsifi 30, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 31% of the weighted points Thomas International gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
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
Pulsifi and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Pulsifi | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pulsifi 30 · Thomas International 54
4.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pulsifi 20 · Thomas International 43
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pulsifi 40 · Thomas International 57
2.5 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pulsifi 28 · Thomas International 40
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pulsifi 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pulsifi 46 · Thomas International 60
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pulsifi 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Pulsifi
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -14.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pulsifi minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Pulsifi | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 54 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 57 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 46 | 60 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 48 (F) | -15 | -14.8 |
§ 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 | Pulsifi | 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% | 3 | 1 | — | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pulsifi last reviewed
- September 25, 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