§ The result
Thomas International leads Tengai by 6 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Tengai 42 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Thomas International: Thomas International is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Tengai on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap (Tengai 33, Thomas International 43) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Tengai 45, Thomas International 54), 27% of the weighted advantage Thomas International builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
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
Tengai 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, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Tengai | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Tengai 45 · Thomas International 54
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Tengai 33 · Thomas International 43
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Tengai 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Tengai 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Tengai
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Tengai 33 · Thomas International 40
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Tengai 28 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Tengai 55 · Thomas International 60
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 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 -5.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Tengai minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Tengai | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 54 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 43 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -5.8 |
§ 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 | Tengai | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | 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 domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 37 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 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 Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Tengai 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.
§ Where next