§ The result
Xobin leads DevSkiller by 11 points.
Both filed under Assessment, Xobin and DevSkiller come out 50 and 39 under rubric v1.0, 11 points in favour of Xobin. DevSkiller takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Xobin, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (DevSkiller 35, Xobin 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 45% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
DevSkiller
DevSkiller (now branded SkillPanel) provides technical skills assessment and coding tests that automatically score developer candidates on real-world work-sample tasks using hidden verification unit tests and static code analysis.
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
DevSkiller and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | DevSkiller | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | PL | IN |
| Founded | 2014 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
DevSkiller 35 · Xobin 62
5.4 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
DevSkiller 22 · Xobin 43
3.8 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
DevSkiller 25 · Xobin 35
1.5 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
DevSkiller 52 · Xobin 57
0.8 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
DevSkiller 55 · Xobin 58
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
DevSkiller 40 · Xobin 38
0.2 weighted points to DevSkiller
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
DevSkiller 58 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 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 -11.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is DevSkiller minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | DevSkiller | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 62 | -27 | -5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 50 (F) | -11 | -11.7 |
§ 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 | DevSkiller | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 4 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
DevSkiller has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 4 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 DevSkiller and Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 15 for DevSkiller, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- DevSkiller last reviewed
- July 17, 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