§ The result
Thomas International leads Willo by 7 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Willo 41 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Video interview cohorts. Thomas International leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Willo leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Thomas International 54, Willo 38, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 39% 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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
§ The record
Thomas International is filed under Assessment AI, Willo under Video interview 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 | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 1981 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Willo 38
3.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Willo 30
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Willo 62
1.3 weighted points to Willo
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Willo 25
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Willo 53
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Willo 36
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Willo 54
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Willo.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 38 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 30 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 53 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 62 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 36 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 41 (F) | +7 | +7.0 |
§ 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 | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 9 | 5 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo 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