§ The result
Alva Labs leads Xobin on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Assessment entries Alva Labs and Xobin at 61 (D) and 50 (F), a gap of 11 points. Alva Labs is ahead of Xobin on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being FRIA Support at Alva Labs 38 to Xobin 35. The advantage Alva Labs holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Alva Labs 78, Xobin 62, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 29% of the weighted points Alva Labs gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alva Labs
Alva Labs sells a science-backed hiring platform whose core is a suite of proprietary psychometric assessments - an adaptive logic (general mental ability) test, a Five-Factor Model personality test, and coding tests - wrapped in candidate management, CV screening, and structured-interview tooling.
Vendor profile
Xobin
Xobin is a talent-assessment platform that sells skills, coding, communication and psychometric tests alongside generative-AI answer scoring (AI Evaluate), AI-led interviews, AI proctoring and NURA, an AI recruiting agent that parses resumes, interviews candidates and builds shortlists.
§ The record
Alva Labs and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | SE | IN |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Xobin 62
3.2 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Xobin 43
2.7 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Xobin 38
1.7 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Xobin 57
1.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Xobin 60
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Xobin 58
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Xobin 35
0.4 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +10.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 62 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 43 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 57 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 38 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 50 (F) | +11 | +10.9 |
§ 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 | Alva Labs | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Xobin has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alva Labs and Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Xobin last reviewed
- September 25, 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