§ The result
Xobin leads CoderPad by 8 points.
Xobin finishes 8 points ahead of CoderPad under rubric v1.0, 50 to 42, both scored as Assessment entries. Xobin leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while CoderPad leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — CoderPad 20, Xobin 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
CoderPad
CoderPad is a technical hiring platform that auto-scores and ranks candidates on coding assessments (Screen), uses an AI reviewer to evaluate and rank applicants' asynchronous video pre-screen responses against employer criteria (Qualify), and hosts live collaborative coding interviews with AI assistance, note-taking and summaries (Interview).
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
CoderPad and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | CoderPad | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CoderPad 20 · Xobin 43
4.1 weighted points to Xobin
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CoderPad 45 · Xobin 62
3.4 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CoderPad 28 · Xobin 35
1.1 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
CoderPad 44 · Xobin 38
0.7 weighted points to CoderPad
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CoderPad 54 · Xobin 57
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CoderPad 58 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CoderPad 57 · Xobin 58
0.1 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CoderPad minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | CoderPad | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 50 (F) | -8 | -8.6 |
§ 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 | CoderPad | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 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% | 6 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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% | 32 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
CoderPad has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 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 CoderPad and Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for CoderPad, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CoderPad last reviewed
- September 25, 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