§ The result
2 points separate Thomas International and Vervoe.
Within the Assessment cohort, Thomas International edges Vervoe by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Vervoe leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Thomas International 40, Vervoe 28) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Thomas International 54, Vervoe 45), the second being 37% 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
Vervoe
AI-powered skills-assessment platform that grades and ranks candidates on performance in role-specific, task-based assessments.
§ The record
Thomas International and Vervoe 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 | Vervoe |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AU |
| Founded | 1981 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 24% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Vervoe 45
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Vervoe 52
1.6 weighted points to Vervoe
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Vervoe 28
1.4 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Vervoe 25
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Vervoe 60
1.1 weighted points to Vervoe
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Vervoe 55
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Vervoe 58
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Vervoe.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Vervoe | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 52 | -9 | -1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 60 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 28 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 46 (F) | +2 | +2.2 |
§ 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 | Thomas International | Vervoe | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 5 | 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; Vervoe has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 20 for Vervoe, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Vervoe 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