§ The result
Thomas International leads TestDome by 11 points.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Assessment entries Thomas International and TestDome at 48 and 37, a gap of 11 points. The 7 criteria split 5 to 1 in favour of Thomas International, with 1 level: Thomas International is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and TestDome on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — TestDome 15, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
TestDome
TestDome sells pay-per-candidate online skills tests for coding, Excel and more than 100 other skills. The tests are scored automatically, and open-ended answers can be scored by AI. AI analysis of webcam and screen proctoring recordings flags possible cheating, and a live code-interview tool is included.
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
TestDome 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 | TestDome | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | HR | GB |
| Founded | 2013 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
TestDome 15 · Thomas International 43
5.0 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
TestDome 40 · Thomas International 54
2.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
TestDome 30 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
TestDome 50 · Thomas International 57
1.1 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
TestDome 28 · Thomas International 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
TestDome 52 · Thomas International 51
0.1 weighted points to TestDome
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is TestDome minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | TestDome | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 15 | 43 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 51 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 48 (F) | -11 | -10.7 |
§ 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 | TestDome | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 5 | 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% | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
TestDome has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for TestDome, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- TestDome 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