§ The result
1 point separates SHL and Xobin.
Under rubric v1.0, SHL and Xobin finish 1 point apart, 51 to 50, as two Assessment entries. The 7 criteria split 3 to 2 in favour of SHL, with 2 level: SHL is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Xobin on FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (SHL 50, Xobin 43) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 76% of the weighted advantage SHL holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
SHL
SHL is a global talent-assessment provider offering AI-scored cognitive ability, personality, behavioral, situational-judgement, coding, and video-interview assessments that score, rank, and recommend candidates for hiring and development decisions.
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
SHL and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | SHL | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | IN |
| Founded | 1977 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
SHL 50 · Xobin 43
1.3 weighted points to SHL
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
SHL 30 · Xobin 35
0.8 weighted points to Xobin
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
SHL 60 · Xobin 62
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
SHL 40 · Xobin 38
0.2 weighted points to SHL
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
SHL 58 · Xobin 57
0.1 weighted points to SHL
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +0.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is SHL minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | SHL | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 43 | +7 | +1.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 51 (F) | 50 (F) | +1 | +0.5 |
§ 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 | SHL | 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% | 2 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
SHL has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for SHL, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- SHL 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
Scored against