§ The result
Thomas International leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
Thomas International finishes 18 points clear of XOR under rubric v1.0 — 48 against 30 — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Thomas International leads every one of the 7 criteria, XOR none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, Thomas International 40 to XOR 33. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Thomas International 54, XOR 20, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 7 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Thomas International is filed under Assessment AI, XOR under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
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 | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1981 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · XOR 20
6.8 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · XOR 18
4.5 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · XOR 42
2.3 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · XOR 40
1.3 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · XOR 25
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · XOR 48
1.0 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · XOR 33
0.8 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +17.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +18 beside that +17.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 20 | +34 | +6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 18 | +25 | +4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 42 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 40 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 33 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 30 (F) | +18 | +17.9 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 7 | 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; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
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 XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR 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.
§ Where next