§ The result
Xobin leads CodeSignal by 7 points.
Xobin finishes 7 points ahead of CodeSignal under rubric v1.0, 50 to 43, both scored as Assessment entries. Xobin leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while CodeSignal leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (CodeSignal 38, Xobin 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 62% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
CodeSignal
CodeSignal is a technical skills assessment and interview platform for developer hiring that adds AI features including an AI Interviewer, AI-assisted/agentic coding assessments, and AI-plus-human proctoring.
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
CodeSignal 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 | CodeSignal | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
CodeSignal 38 · Xobin 62
4.8 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
CodeSignal 25 · Xobin 35
1.5 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
CodeSignal 50 · Xobin 57
1.1 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
CodeSignal 45 · Xobin 43
0.4 weighted points to CodeSignal
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
CodeSignal 55 · Xobin 58
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
CodeSignal 62 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to CodeSignal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -7.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is CodeSignal minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | CodeSignal | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 43 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 50 (F) | -7 | -7.2 |
§ 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 | CodeSignal | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
CodeSignal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for CodeSignal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- CodeSignal last reviewed
- June 7, 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