§ The result
Xobin leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Xobin (Assessment) opens a 20-point lead on Moonhub (Sourcing), 50 to 30. Moonhub leads none of the 7 criteria, and Xobin is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them. The advantage Xobin holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Moonhub 30, Xobin 62, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 32% of the weighted points Xobin gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
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
Moonhub is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Xobin under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Xobin is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Moonhub | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2022 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Moonhub 30 · Xobin 62
6.4 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Moonhub 18 · Xobin 43
4.5 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Moonhub 40 · Xobin 57
2.5 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Moonhub 22 · Xobin 38
1.9 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Moonhub 38 · Xobin 60
1.8 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Moonhub 25 · Xobin 35
1.5 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Moonhub 48 · Xobin 58
1.2 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -19.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -20 beside that -19.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Moonhub minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Moonhub | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 62 | -32 | -6.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 43 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 57 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 22 | 38 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 50 (F) | -20 | -19.8 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 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 Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Moonhub last reviewed
- June 7, 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