§ The result
4 points separate Checkr and Xobin.
Checkr holds a 4-point edge over Xobin under rubric v1.0, 54 to 50, across the Screening and Assessment cohorts. Checkr leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Xobin leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Checkr 50, Xobin 38) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Checkr 70, Xobin 62), the second being 30% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
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
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Xobin under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Xobin is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Checkr | 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 · 22% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Xobin 62
1.6 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Xobin 43
1.4 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Xobin 38
1.4 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Xobin 58
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Xobin 57
0.8 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Xobin 60
0.6 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Xobin 35
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 62 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 43 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 60 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 50 (F) | +4 | +3.5 |
§ 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 | Checkr | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 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 Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr 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