§ The result
Thomas International and Workable tie at 48.
Thomas International (Assessment) and Workable (ATS-integrated) tie at 48 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Thomas International leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Workable 4, yet the two totals land on the same number. Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Thomas International 51, Workable 62 — and at a 12% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Workable 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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Thomas International is filed under Assessment AI, Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1981 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Workable 62
1.3 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Workable 25
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Workable 56
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Workable 42
0.2 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Workable 55
0.2 weighted points to Workable
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Workable 42
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Workable 58
0.1 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 42 | +1 | +0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 62 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 48 (F) | - | -0.2 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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