Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Sova Assessment vs Thomas International
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Sova Assessment and Thomas International tie at 48.
Sova Assessment and Thomas International tie at 48 under rubric v1.0 inside the Assessment cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Sova Assessment leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Thomas International 2, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, FRIA Support, is both the widest raw gap (Sova Assessment 40, Thomas International 33) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 15% weight it makes up 56% of the weighted advantage Sova Assessment holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Sova Assessment4
- Thomas International2
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- FRIA Support40 vs 33
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Sova Assessment and Thomas International are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Sova Assessment | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 1981 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight30% of the movement so far
Sova Assessment40Thomas International331.1 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight55% of the movement so far
Sova Assessment38Thomas International430.9 weighted points to Thomas International
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight76% of the movement so far
Sova Assessment52Thomas International570.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight90% of the movement so far
Sova Assessment55Thomas International510.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 5
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight95% of the movement so far
Sova Assessment55Thomas International540.2 weighted points to Sova Assessment
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Sova Assessment62Thomas International600.2 weighted points to Sova Assessment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.5 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 +0.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Sova Assessment minus Thomas International, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Sova Assessment | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48F | 48F | - | +0.2 |
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 | Sova Assessment | 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% | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 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 Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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.