§ The result
Thomas International takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria than Thomas International — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Thomas International leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Thomas International. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Teamtailor 30, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
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
Teamtailor 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 | Teamtailor | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · Thomas International 43
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · Thomas International 33
1.3 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · Thomas International 54
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · Thomas International 51
0.4 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.4 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 -0.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 33 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 51 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -0.9 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 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