§ The result
Thomas International leads Toggl Hire by 11 points.
Thomas International sits 11 points above Toggl Hire under rubric v1.0, 48 against 37, with both filed under Assessment. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Toggl Hire leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Thomas International 54, Toggl Hire 30 — and at a 20% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Toggl Hire
Toggl Hire is a skills-first hiring platform (now being retired) that screens candidates with auto-graded skills tests, async video interviews and homework assignments, bundled with a lightweight ATS.
§ The record
Thomas International and Toggl Hire 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 | Thomas International | Toggl Hire |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | EE |
| Founded | 1981 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Toggl Hire 30
4.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Toggl Hire 20
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Toggl Hire 50
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Toggl Hire 35
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Toggl Hire 30
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Toggl Hire 55
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Toggl Hire 52
0.1 weighted points to Toggl Hire
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 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 +11.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Toggl Hire.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Toggl Hire | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 30 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 20 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 52 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 37 (F) | +11 | +11.0 |
§ 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 | Thomas International | Toggl Hire | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Toggl Hire has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for Toggl Hire, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Toggl Hire 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