§ The result
2 points separate Thomas International and RippleMatch.
Thomas International holds a 2-point edge over RippleMatch under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Thomas International leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while RippleMatch leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to RippleMatch — RippleMatch 53, Thomas International 43, on an 18% weight — which is 71% of the weighted advantage RippleMatch holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
RippleMatch
RippleMatch is an early-career recruiting platform that sources students and recent graduates for employers' roles, ranks applicants with a 0-100 Fit Score built from criteria the recruiter configures, and adds verified skill badges, applicant review, interview scheduling and campus-event tools.
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
RippleMatch is filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | RippleMatch | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
RippleMatch 53 · Thomas International 43
1.8 weighted points to RippleMatch
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
RippleMatch 46 · Thomas International 54
1.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
RippleMatch 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
RippleMatch 27 · Thomas International 33
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
RippleMatch 57 · Thomas International 51
0.7 weighted points to RippleMatch
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
RippleMatch 37 · Thomas International 40
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is RippleMatch minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | RippleMatch | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 46 | 54 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 53 | 43 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 27 | 33 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 51 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 37 | 40 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.4 |
§ 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 | RippleMatch | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources 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% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 35 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
RippleMatch has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 35 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; some documentation or audit rows for RippleMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for RippleMatch, across 5 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- RippleMatch 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