Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Thomas International vs X0PA AI
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.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
X0PA AI
X0PA AI is a Singapore-based B2B AI recruitment platform (applicant tracking system) that sources, screens, scores, and ranks candidates using proprietary predictive-scoring models (BRIQ Score and Suitability Score) plus the X0PA ROOM video-interview/assessment product, marketed around bias-reduced, "responsible and explainable" AI hiring.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Thomas International and X0PA AI tie at 48.
Thomas International and X0PA AI, both in the Assessment cohort, tie at 48 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Thomas International leads 2 of the 7 criteria and X0PA AI 3, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Thomas International takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Thomas International 54, X0PA AI 50), which is 84% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Human Oversight Design, Thomas International 51 to X0PA AI 57.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Thomas International2
- X0PA AI3
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Human Oversight Design51 vs 57
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Thomas International and X0PA AI are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Thomas International | X0PA AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | SG |
| Founded | 1981 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight31% of the movement so far
Thomas International54X0PA AI500.8 weighted points to Thomas International
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight60% of the movement so far
Thomas International33X0PA AI380.8 weighted points to X0PA AI
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight87% of the movement so far
Thomas International51X0PA AI570.7 weighted points to X0PA AI
- 4
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight94% of the movement so far
Thomas International43X0PA AI440.2 weighted points to X0PA AI
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
Thomas International57X0PA AI560.1 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.6 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 -0.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus X0PA AI, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | X0PA AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 44 | -1 | -0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 38 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 57 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 40 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 48F | 48F | - | -0.7 |
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 | X0PA AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 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; X0PA AI has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for X0PA AI sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 18 for X0PA AI, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- X0PA AI last reviewed
- July 17, 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.