§ The result
Thomas International leads Qureos by 15 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Thomas International (Assessment) opens a 15-point lead on Qureos (Screening), 48 to 33. Qureos takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Thomas International, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Qureos 12, Thomas International 43, 18% weight), is only 37% of the weighted advantage Thomas International builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
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
Qureos 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 | Qureos | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | AE | GB |
| Founded | 2021 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Qureos 12 · Thomas International 43
5.6 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Qureos 28 · Thomas International 54
5.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Qureos 44 · Thomas International 57
1.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Qureos 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Qureos 52 · Thomas International 60
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Qureos 35 · Thomas International 40
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Qureos 54 · Thomas International 51
0.4 weighted points to Qureos
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 15.5 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 Qureos minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Qureos | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 54 | -26 | -5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 12 | 43 | -31 | -5.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 51 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| 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 | Qureos | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Qureos 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