§ The result
Thomas International leads Recruit CRM by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Thomas International, filed under Assessment, finishes on 48 and Recruit CRM, filed under ATS-integrated, on 40, 8 points apart. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Recruit CRM and Thomas International, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Thomas International holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Recruit CRM 20, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Recruit CRM
Recruit CRM is an ATS and CRM for recruitment agencies and executive search firms, with AI resume parsing, AI sourcing from an 800M+ profile Global Database, and AI candidate matching that scores and ranks candidates 0–100 with explanations for each dimension.
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
Recruit CRM is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Thomas International is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Recruit CRM | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | Not recorded | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Recruit CRM 20 · Thomas International 43
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Recruit CRM 34 · Thomas International 54
4.0 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Recruit CRM 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Recruit CRM
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Recruit CRM 54 · Thomas International 57
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Recruit CRM 42 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Recruit CRM
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Recruit CRM 34 · Thomas International 33
0.1 weighted points to Recruit CRM
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.8 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 -7.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Recruit CRM minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Recruit CRM | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 34 | 54 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 34 | 33 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 48 (F) | -8 | -7.4 |
§ 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 | Recruit CRM | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 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% | 30 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Recruit CRM has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 with a source URL, 5 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 Recruit CRM sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Recruit CRM, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Recruit CRM 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.