§ The result
Saville Assessment and Thomas International tie at 48.
Saville Assessment and Thomas International, both in the Assessment cohort, tie at 48 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Saville Assessment leads 2 of the 7 criteria and Thomas International 4, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Saville Assessment 40, Thomas International 33 — and at a 15% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Saville Assessment holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
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
Saville Assessment 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 | Saville Assessment | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2004 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 34% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Saville Assessment 40 · Thomas International 33
1.1 weighted points to Saville Assessment
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Saville Assessment 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Saville Assessment 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Saville Assessment
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Saville Assessment 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Saville Assessment 38 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Saville Assessment 42 · Thomas International 43
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to 0.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that 0.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Saville Assessment minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Saville Assessment | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 43 | -1 | -0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 48 (F) | - | 0.0 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 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 Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Saville Assessment 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