§ The result
Xobin leads Feenyx on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, Xobin and Feenyx come out 50 and 40 under rubric v1.0, 10 points in favour of Xobin. Xobin leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Feenyx is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Xobin leads is Customer Documentation, Feenyx 55 to Xobin 60. The advantage Xobin holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Feenyx 42, Xobin 62, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points Xobin gains across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Feenyx
Feenyx (formerly Filtered.ai) is a skills-assessment and interview platform that runs AI-scored asynchronous coding, video and written assessments and AI-assisted live interviews, with resume scoring, candidate matching, identity verification and fraud/AI-use detection.
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
Feenyx and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Feenyx | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2016 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Feenyx 42 · Xobin 62
4.0 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Feenyx 25 · Xobin 43
3.2 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Feenyx 25 · Xobin 35
1.5 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Feenyx 50 · Xobin 57
1.1 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Feenyx 55 · Xobin 60
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Feenyx minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Feenyx | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 43 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 40 (F) | 50 (F) | -10 | -10.2 |
§ 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 | Feenyx | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 8 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 30 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Feenyx has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 30 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 Feenyx and Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Feenyx, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Feenyx 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