§ The result
2 points separate Test Partnership and Thomas International.
Within the Assessment cohort, Test Partnership edges Thomas International by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 50 to 48. Test Partnership leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Thomas International leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Human Oversight Design (Test Partnership 58, Thomas International 51) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Test Partnership 48, Thomas International 43), the second being 31% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
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
Test Partnership 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 | Test Partnership | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Test Partnership 48 · Thomas International 43
0.9 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Test Partnership 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Test Partnership 33 · Thomas International 40
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Test Partnership 57 · Thomas International 54
0.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Test Partnership 36 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Test Partnership 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Test Partnership minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Test Partnership | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 43 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 36 | 33 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 50 (F) | 48 (F) | +2 | +2.1 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Test Partnership | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 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; some documentation or audit rows for Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Test Partnership 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