§ The result
3 points separate Textkernel and Thomas International.
Textkernel (Sourcing) edges Thomas International (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 51 to 48. Textkernel leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Thomas International leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Textkernel 55, Thomas International 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 60% of the weighted advantage Textkernel holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
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
Textkernel is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Textkernel | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | GB |
| Founded | 2001 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Textkernel 55 · Thomas International 43
2.2 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Textkernel 60 · Thomas International 51
1.1 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Textkernel 55 · Thomas International 57
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Textkernel 55 · Thomas International 54
0.2 weighted points to Textkernel
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Textkernel 62 · Thomas International 60
0.2 weighted points to Textkernel
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Textkernel 32 · Thomas International 33
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.0 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 +3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Textkernel minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Textkernel | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 54 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 55 | 43 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 33 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 51 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 51 (F) | 48 (F) | +3 | +3.2 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | 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 | Audit reportSources 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Textkernel 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