§ The result
Tribepad leads Thomas International by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Tribepad, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 56 and Thomas International, filed under Assessment, on 48, 8 points apart. Tribepad leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Thomas International leads 3, including FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Thomas International 43, Tribepad 78 — and at an 18% weight it carries 68% of the weighted advantage Tribepad holds across the 4 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
Tribepad
Tribepad is a UK applicant tracking system whose built-in Sidekick AI assistant scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted skills and generates candidate summaries, SWOT analyses, job descriptions, salary suggestions and interview questions.
§ The record
Thomas International is filed under Assessment AI, Tribepad under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Thomas International is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Thomas International | Tribepad |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 1981 | 2008 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Tribepad 78
6.3 weighted points to Tribepad
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Tribepad 54
1.7 weighted points to Tribepad
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Tribepad 58
0.8 weighted points to Tribepad
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Tribepad 30
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Tribepad 56
0.4 weighted points to Tribepad
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Tribepad 58
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Tribepad 56
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Tribepad.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Tribepad | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 78 | -35 | -6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 58 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 54 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 56 (F) | -8 | -8.5 |
§ 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 | Tribepad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Tribepad has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Tribepad sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Tribepad, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tribepad last reviewed
- September 25, 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