§ The result
1 point separates Textkernel and Xobin.
Textkernel holds a 1-point edge over Xobin under rubric v1.0, 51 to 50, across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Textkernel leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Xobin leads 3, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Textkernel 55, Xobin 43 — and at an 18% weight it carries 77% of the weighted advantage Textkernel holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Textkernel
Textkernel provides AI-powered CV/resume and job parsing, semantic search, and candidate-job matching technology (including the acquired Sovren engine) embedded inside ATS, job board, and HR systems.
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
Textkernel 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 | Textkernel | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | NL | IN |
| Founded | 2001 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Textkernel 55 · Xobin 43
2.2 weighted points to Textkernel
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Textkernel 55 · Xobin 62
1.4 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Textkernel 32 · Xobin 35
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Textkernel 55 · Xobin 57
0.3 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Textkernel 60 · Xobin 58
0.2 weighted points to Textkernel
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Textkernel 40 · Xobin 38
0.2 weighted points to Textkernel
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Textkernel 62 · Xobin 60
0.2 weighted points to Textkernel
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.0 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 +0.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Textkernel minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Textkernel | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 55 | 43 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 57 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 51 (F) | 50 (F) | +1 | +0.7 |
§ 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 | Textkernel | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 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% | 13 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Textkernel has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Textkernel, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Textkernel 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