§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Thomas International on all 7 criteria.
Sapia.ai scores 56 and Thomas International 48 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Sapia.ai is ahead of Thomas International on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at Sapia.ai 35 to Thomas International 33. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Sapia.ai 70, Thomas International 54, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
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
Sapia.ai 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 | Sapia.ai | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sapia.ai 70 · Thomas International 54
3.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sapia.ai 52 · Thomas International 43
1.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sapia.ai 62 · Thomas International 51
1.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sapia.ai 50 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sapia.ai 62 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sapia.ai 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sapia.ai 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.5 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 +8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sapia.ai minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Sapia.ai | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 54 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 43 | +9 | +1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 51 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 48 (F) | +8 | +8.5 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 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 Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sapia.ai 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