§ The result
1 point separates Thomas International and TestGorilla.
Within the Assessment cohort, Thomas International edges TestGorilla by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 48 to 47. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while TestGorilla leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Human Oversight Design is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to TestGorilla — TestGorilla 60, Thomas International 51, on a 12% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage TestGorilla holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
TestGorilla
TestGorilla is a pre-employment skills-assessment platform offering a large test library plus AI features for resume scoring, candidate sourcing, and one-way/conversational AI video interviews to support skills-based hiring.
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
TestGorilla 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 | TestGorilla | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
TestGorilla 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to TestGorilla
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
TestGorilla 38 · Thomas International 43
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
TestGorilla 30 · Thomas International 33
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
TestGorilla 52 · Thomas International 54
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
TestGorilla 38 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
TestGorilla 58 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
TestGorilla 56 · Thomas International 57
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.4 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 -1.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is TestGorilla minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | TestGorilla | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 43 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 33 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 40 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 48 (F) | -1 | -1.2 |
§ 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 | TestGorilla | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
TestGorilla has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 TestGorilla sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for TestGorilla, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- TestGorilla 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