§ The result
Xobin leads Radancy by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Xobin, filed under Assessment, finishes on 50 and Radancy, filed under Sourcing, on 41, 9 points apart. Radancy takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 5 for Xobin, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Radancy 20, Xobin 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
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
Radancy is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Xobin under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Radancy | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2006 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Radancy 20 · Xobin 43
4.1 weighted points to Xobin
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Radancy 42 · Xobin 62
4.0 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Radancy 28 · Xobin 35
1.1 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Radancy 36 · Xobin 38
0.2 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Radancy 58 · Xobin 57
0.1 weighted points to Radancy
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Radancy 57 · Xobin 58
0.1 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Radancy minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Radancy | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 43 | -23 | -4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 38 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 50 (F) | -9 | -9.4 |
§ 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 | Radancy | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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% | 3 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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