§ The result
Thomas International leads Talview by 6 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Talview 42 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Video interview cohorts. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Talview leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Data Governance Disclosure is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Talview 48, Thomas International 57, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 23% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Talview
AI-powered hiring and exam-integrity platform spanning video interviewing, skills assessments, identity verification, and AI proctoring.
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
Talview is filed under Video interview AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | Talview | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 21% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Talview 48 · Thomas International 57
1.3 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 40% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Talview 25 · Thomas International 33
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Talview 32 · Thomas International 40
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Talview 38 · Thomas International 43
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Talview 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Talview 52 · Thomas International 60
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Talview 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Talview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 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 -5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Talview minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Talview | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 33 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 40 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -5.4 |
§ 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 | Talview | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Talview has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 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 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Talview, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Talview 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