§ The result
Xobin leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Xobin (Assessment) opens a 17-point lead on Emi (Screening), 50 to 33. Xobin leads every one of the 7 criteria, Emi none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Post-Market Monitoring, Emi 35 to Xobin 38. Even Article 11 Technical Documentation, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Emi 28, Xobin 62, 20% weight), is only 38% of the weighted advantage Xobin builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Emi
Emi runs AI agents on WhatsApp, SMS and Messenger that screen and score frontline job applicants against employer-set criteria, schedule interviews, and collect hiring documents and check them against Mexican government databases.
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
Emi 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 | Emi | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | AR | IN |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Xobin 62
6.8 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Xobin 43
4.5 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Xobin 57
1.9 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Xobin 58
1.7 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Xobin 35
1.5 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Xobin 60
1.0 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Xobin 38
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -17.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -17.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 62 | -34 | -6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 43 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 50 (F) | -17 | -17.8 |
§ 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 | Emi | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 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% | 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% | 3 | 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 a separate 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% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 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 Emi and Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi 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