§ The result
Thomas International leads Talogy by 6 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Talogy 42 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Talogy leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Talogy 30, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
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
Talogy 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 | Talogy | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1946 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Talogy 30 · Thomas International 43
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Talogy 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Talogy 32 · Thomas International 40
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Talogy 52 · Thomas International 57
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Talogy 53 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Talogy 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Talogy 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to Talogy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Talogy minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Talogy | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 53 | 54 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -5.5 |
§ 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 | Talogy | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 22 | 9 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 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 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Talogy 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.
§ Where next