§ The result
Thomas International leads Recruitee by 6 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Recruitee 42 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Recruitee leads 1, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Recruitee 30, Thomas International 43) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Recruitee 42, Thomas International 54), the second being 37% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Recruitee
Collaborative applicant tracking system, part of the Tellent group, with AI-assisted features for job-description generation, screening candidates against team-defined criteria, resurfacing past applicants, and summarizing evaluation feedback.
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
Recruitee is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Recruitee | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Recruitee 42 · Thomas International 54
2.4 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Recruitee 30 · Thomas International 43
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Recruitee 27 · Thomas International 33
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Recruitee 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Recruitee
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Recruitee 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Recruitee 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Recruitee minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Recruitee | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 54 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 33 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -5.7 |
§ 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 | Recruitee | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Recruitee has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Recruitee, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Recruitee last reviewed
- July 17, 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