§ The result
Xobin takes the total, Hogan Assessments takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Xobin and Hogan Assessments finish 3 points apart, 50 to 47, as two Assessment entries. Hogan Assessments leads more of the criteria than Xobin — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Xobin leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Xobin. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Hogan Assessments 50, Xobin 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 62% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
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
Hogan Assessments 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 | Hogan Assessments | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 1987 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hogan Assessments 50 · Xobin 62
2.4 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hogan Assessments 52 · Xobin 57
0.8 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hogan Assessments 52 · Xobin 58
0.7 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hogan Assessments 40 · Xobin 38
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
18% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hogan Assessments 44 · Xobin 43
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hogan Assessments 62 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hogan Assessments 36 · Xobin 35
0.1 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hogan Assessments minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Hogan Assessments | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 43 | +1 | +0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 36 | 35 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 50 (F) | -3 | -3.1 |
§ 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 | Hogan Assessments | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 6 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 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hogan Assessments 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