§ The result
SmartRecruiters leads Thomas International on all 7 criteria.
SmartRecruiters sits 14 points above Thomas International under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 48 (F) — with SmartRecruiters filed under ATS-integrated and Thomas International under Assessment. SmartRecruiters leads every one of the 7 criteria, Thomas International none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, SmartRecruiters 63 to Thomas International 60. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — SmartRecruiters 78, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage SmartRecruiters holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
SmartRecruiters
SmartRecruiters is an enterprise applicant tracking system and talent acquisition suite whose AI layer (the Winston assistant plus SmartAssistant/Winston Match) screens, ranks, and matches candidates to requisitions to support recruiter 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
SmartRecruiters is filed under ATS-integrated 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 | SmartRecruiters | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2010 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
SmartRecruiters 78 · Thomas International 43
6.3 weighted points to SmartRecruiters
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
SmartRecruiters 70 · Thomas International 54
3.2 weighted points to SmartRecruiters
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
SmartRecruiters 45 · Thomas International 33
1.8 weighted points to SmartRecruiters
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
SmartRecruiters 62 · Thomas International 51
1.3 weighted points to SmartRecruiters
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
SmartRecruiters 48 · Thomas International 40
1.0 weighted points to SmartRecruiters
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
SmartRecruiters 62 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to SmartRecruiters
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
SmartRecruiters 63 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to SmartRecruiters
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is SmartRecruiters minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | SmartRecruiters | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 54 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 78 | 43 | +35 | +6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 45 | 33 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 51 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 60 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 48 (F) | +14 | +14.6 |
§ 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 | SmartRecruiters | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
SmartRecruiters has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 2 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 SmartRecruiters sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 30 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for SmartRecruiters, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- SmartRecruiters 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.