§ The result
Xobin takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
Xobin holds a 3-point edge over Teamtailor under rubric v1.0, 50 to 47, across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Teamtailor leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Xobin, yet Xobin takes Article 11 Technical Documentation, which carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Xobin takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Teamtailor 50, Xobin 62), which is 46% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, Teamtailor 30 to Xobin 43.
Vendor profile
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
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
Teamtailor 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 | Teamtailor | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | SE | IN |
| Founded | 2013 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Teamtailor 50 · Xobin 62
2.4 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Teamtailor 30 · Xobin 43
2.3 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Teamtailor 42 · Xobin 35
1.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Teamtailor 54 · Xobin 58
0.5 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Teamtailor 42 · Xobin 38
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Teamtailor 62 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Teamtailor 58 · Xobin 57
0.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Teamtailor minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Teamtailor | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 35 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 38 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 50 (F) | -3 | -3.4 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | 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% | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | 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% | 3 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Teamtailor last reviewed
- July 17, 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