§ The result
isolved leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
isolved finishes 17 points clear of XOR under rubric v1.0 — 47 against 30 — across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. isolved takes all 7 criteria and XOR none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, isolved 30 to XOR 25. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (isolved 50, XOR 20, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 35% of the weighted advantage isolved holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
Vendor profile
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
isolved is filed under ATS-integrated AI, XOR under Screening 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.
| Record | isolved | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1986 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · XOR 20
6.0 weighted points to isolved
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · XOR 18
4.9 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · XOR 40
1.8 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
isolved 47 · XOR 33
1.7 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · XOR 42
1.6 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · XOR 25
0.8 weighted points to isolved
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
isolved 56 · XOR 48
0.6 weighted points to isolved
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +17.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.4 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 +17.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | isolved | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 20 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 18 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 42 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 40 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 33 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 30 (F) | +17 | +17.4 |
§ 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 | isolved | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 18 for XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR last reviewed
- July 17, 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