§ The result
Thomas International leads RecruitBot on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Thomas International, filed under Assessment, comes out 11 points above RecruitBot, filed under Sourcing: 48 against 37 under rubric v1.0. RecruitBot is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Thomas International takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Human Oversight Design, RecruitBot 50 to Thomas International 51. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (RecruitBot 33, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
RecruitBot
RecruitBot is an AI sourcing platform that searches a proprietary database of 655M+ candidate profiles, re-ranks results with machine learning trained on each recruiter's star ratings, and automates personalized email outreach.
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
RecruitBot is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Thomas International is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | RecruitBot | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
RecruitBot 33 · Thomas International 54
4.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
RecruitBot 22 · Thomas International 43
3.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
RecruitBot 48 · Thomas International 57
1.3 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
RecruitBot 27 · Thomas International 33
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
RecruitBot 55 · Thomas International 60
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
RecruitBot 50 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is RecruitBot minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | RecruitBot | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 33 | 54 | -21 | -4.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 33 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 51 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 48 (F) | -11 | -10.8 |
§ 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 | RecruitBot | 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% | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
RecruitBot has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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; some documentation or audit rows for RecruitBot sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for RecruitBot, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- RecruitBot 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