HomeCompareStepstone vs Thomas International

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Stepstone vs Thomas International

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Stepstone takes the total, Thomas International takes more of the criteria.

Stepstone holds a 1-point edge over Thomas International under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48, across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Thomas International leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Stepstone, yet Stepstone takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Stepstone 50, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 55% of the weighted advantage Stepstone holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Stepstone 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.

RecordStepstoneThomas International
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersDEGB
Founded19961981

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 37% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Stepstone 50 · Thomas International 43

    1.3 weighted points to Stepstone

  2. 12% weight · 61% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Stepstone 58 · Thomas International 51

    0.8 weighted points to Stepstone

  3. 15% weight · 74% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Stepstone 30 · Thomas International 33

    0.4 weighted points to Thomas International

  4. 15% weight · 83% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Stepstone 55 · Thomas International 57

    0.3 weighted points to Thomas International

  5. 12% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Stepstone 38 · Thomas International 40

    0.2 weighted points to Thomas International

  6. 20% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Stepstone 55 · Thomas International 54

    0.2 weighted points to Stepstone

  7. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Stepstone 58 · Thomas International 60

    0.2 weighted points to Thomas International

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.1 — 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 +1 beside that +1.1.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Stepstone minus Thomas International.

CategoryWeightStepstoneThomas InternationalΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5554+1+0.2
Bias Audit Transparency18%5043+7+1.3
FRIA Support15%3033-3-0.4
Data Governance Disclosure15%5557-2-0.3
Human Oversight Design12%5851+7+0.8
Post-Market Monitoring12%3840-2-0.2
Customer Documentation8%5860-2-0.2
Total100%49 (F)48 (F)+1+1.1

§ 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.

CriterionWeightStepstoneThomas International
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%51Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Audit reportSources on a separate domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%60Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%50Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%50Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%294Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain116Sources on the vendor's own domain

Stepstone has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 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; some documentation or audit rows for Stepstone sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Stepstone, across 6 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Stepstone 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.