§ The result
Thomas International leads Wonderlic by 5 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Wonderlic 43 under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Wonderlic leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Data Governance Disclosure is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Thomas International 57, Wonderlic 38 — and at a 15% weight it carries 50% 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Thomas International and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1981 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Wonderlic 38
2.9 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Wonderlic 25
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Wonderlic 48
0.9 weighted points to Wonderlic
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Wonderlic 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Wonderlic 52
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Wonderlic 55
0.4 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Wonderlic 52
0.1 weighted points to Wonderlic
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 48 | -5 | -0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 38 | +19 | +2.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 52 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 43 (F) | +5 | +4.7 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 6 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 32 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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