§ The result
Harver leads Xobin by 6 points.
Inside the Assessment cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Harver on 56 and Xobin on 50, 6 points apart. Xobin takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 3 for Harver, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harver 80, Xobin 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 89% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
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
Harver and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Harver | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | NL | IN |
| Founded | 2015 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harver 80 · Xobin 43
6.7 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harver 50 · Xobin 58
1.0 weighted points to Xobin
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harver 65 · Xobin 62
0.6 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harver 55 · Xobin 57
0.3 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harver 40 · Xobin 38
0.2 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Harver | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 62 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 43 | +37 | +6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 50 (F) | +6 | +6.2 |
§ 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 | Harver | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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