§ The result
Xobin leads Cangrade by 5 points.
Xobin finishes 5 points ahead of Cangrade under rubric v1.0, 50 to 45, both scored as Assessment entries. Xobin leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Cangrade leads 1, including Customer Documentation. The advantage Xobin holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cangrade 52, Xobin 62, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points Xobin gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2014 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Xobin 62
2.0 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Xobin 43
1.4 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 73% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Xobin 35
0.8 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Xobin 38
0.7 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Xobin 57
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Xobin 58
0.2 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to Cangrade
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 50 (F) | -5 | -5.4 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade and Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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