Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Pymetrics (Harver Games) vs Thomas International
Export comparison (CSV)Pro→§ The result
Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, Thomas International takes more of the criteria.
Pymetrics (Harver Games) scores 56 and Thomas International 48 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Thomas International leads more of the criteria than Pymetrics (Harver Games) — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Pymetrics (Harver Games). Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 65% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Pymetrics (Harver Games)
Behavioral assessment using browser-based "games" that infer cognitive and emotional traits. Acquired by Harver in 2022 and folded into the Harver Games product line.
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
Pymetrics (Harver Games) and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80 · Thomas International 43
6.7 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70 · Thomas International 54
3.2 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 55 · Thomas International 60
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.6 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 +8.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Pymetrics (Harver Games) minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 54 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 43 | +37 | +6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 51 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 48 (F) | +8 | +8.0 |
§ 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 | Pymetrics (Harver Games) | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 a separate 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 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 9 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 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; some documentation or audit rows for Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Pymetrics (Harver Games) 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