§ The result
3 points separate Thomas International and Testlify.
Thomas International holds a 3-point edge over Testlify under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. The 7 criteria split 3 to 2 in favour of Thomas International, with 2 level: Thomas International is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Testlify on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Testlify 30, Thomas International 43) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 77% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Testlify
Testlify is a skills-assessment and AI-interviewing platform that ranks candidates on a scored leaderboard from pre-built or AI-generated tests, with an AI résumé screener, AI-scored video, voice and chat interviews, and AI-assisted proctoring.
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
Testlify 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 | Testlify | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2022 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Testlify 30 · Thomas International 43
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Testlify 55 · Thomas International 51
0.5 weighted points to Testlify
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Testlify 52 · Thomas International 54
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Testlify 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Testlify 42 · Thomas International 40
0.2 weighted points to Testlify
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -2.3 — 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 -3 beside that -2.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Testlify minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Testlify | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 33 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 51 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 40 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 48 (F) | -3 | -2.3 |
§ 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 | Testlify | 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% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Testlify has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Testlify, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Testlify 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