§ The result
Sense leads Thomas International on all 7 criteria.
Sense sits 10 points above Thomas International under rubric v1.0 — 58 against 48 — with Sense filed under Screening and Thomas International under Assessment. Sense leads every one of the 7 criteria, Thomas International none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Sense 58 to Thomas International 57. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Sense 72, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage Sense holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer'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
Sense is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | Sense | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2016 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Sense 72 · Thomas International 43
5.2 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Sense 64 · Thomas International 51
1.6 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Sense 52 · Thomas International 40
1.4 weighted points to Sense
20% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Sense 60 · Thomas International 54
1.2 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Sense 38 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Sense 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Sense 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +10.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sense minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Sense | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 72 | 43 | +29 | +5.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 51 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 40 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 48 (F) | +10 | +10.5 |
§ 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 | Sense | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 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 Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sense 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