§ The result
4 points separate Thomas International and Retorio.
Within the Assessment cohort, Thomas International edges Retorio by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 44. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Post-Market Monitoring, while Retorio leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Customer Documentation (Retorio 50, Thomas International 60) and Post-Market Monitoring at 12% (Retorio 33, Thomas International 40), the second being 20% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Retorio
Video-based AI that analyses words, voice, and facial expression/body language to infer Big Five (OCEAN) personality and behavioural traits.
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
Retorio and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Retorio | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 20% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Retorio 33 · Thomas International 40
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Retorio 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Retorio 50 · Thomas International 60
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Retorio 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Retorio 40 · Thomas International 43
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Retorio 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Retorio 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Retorio
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Retorio minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Retorio | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 43 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 48 (F) | -4 | -4.1 |
§ 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 | Retorio | 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% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 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% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Retorio has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 Retorio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 39 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Retorio, across 4 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Retorio last reviewed
- June 7, 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