§ The result
4 points separate Thomas International and UKG.
Thomas International (Assessment) edges UKG (ATS-integrated) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 44. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 2, including FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Thomas International 43, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 5 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Thomas International is filed under Assessment AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1981 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · UKG 30
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · UKG 48
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · UKG 55
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · UKG 35
0.3 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · UKG 38
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · UKG 56
0.1 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · UKG 52
0.1 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 48 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 30 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 52 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 44 (F) | +4 | +3.9 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | — |
| 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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