§ The result
Workday Recruiting AI leads Thomas International by 8 points.
Workday Recruiting AI scores 56 and Thomas International 48 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Workday Recruiting AI leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Thomas International leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Thomas International 43, Workday Recruiting AI 60) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Thomas International 54, Workday Recruiting AI 70), the second being 37% of the weighted advantage Workday Recruiting AI 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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Thomas International is filed under Assessment AI, Workday Recruiting AI under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Thomas International is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Thomas International | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1981 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
3.2 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
3.1 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
1.7 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
0.3 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 70 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 60 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 65 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 65 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 56 (F) | -8 | -7.7 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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.