§ The result
3 points separate SHL and Thomas International.
Within the Assessment cohort, SHL edges Thomas International by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 51 to 48. SHL leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Thomas International leads 1, including FRIA Support, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (SHL 50, Thomas International 43, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage SHL holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
SHL
SHL is a global talent-assessment provider offering AI-scored cognitive ability, personality, behavioral, situational-judgement, coding, and video-interview assessments that score, rank, and recommend candidates for hiring and development decisions.
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
SHL 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 | SHL | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 1977 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
SHL 50 · Thomas International 43
1.3 weighted points to SHL
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
SHL 60 · Thomas International 54
1.2 weighted points to SHL
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
SHL 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to SHL
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
SHL 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
SHL 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to SHL
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +3.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is SHL minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | SHL | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 43 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 51 (F) | 48 (F) | +3 | +3.0 |
§ 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 | SHL | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 15 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
SHL has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for SHL, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- SHL 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