§ The result
Xobin leads softgarden by 8 points.
Xobin scores 50 and softgarden 42 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Xobin leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while softgarden leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Xobin (softgarden 42, Xobin 62), 44% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Bias Audit Transparency, softgarden 22 to Xobin 43.
Vendor profile
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
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
softgarden is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Xobin under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Xobin is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | softgarden | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | DE | IN |
| Founded | 2001 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
softgarden 42 · Xobin 62
4.0 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
softgarden 22 · Xobin 43
3.8 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
softgarden 30 · Xobin 35
0.8 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
softgarden 44 · Xobin 38
0.7 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
softgarden 54 · Xobin 57
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
softgarden 58 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is softgarden minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | softgarden | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 43 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 57 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 50 (F) | -8 | -8.4 |
§ 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 | softgarden | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- softgarden last reviewed
- September 25, 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