§ The result
2 points separate Xobin and Thomas International.
Within the Assessment cohort, Xobin edges Thomas International by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 50 to 48. Thomas International takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 3 for Xobin, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 3 are level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Thomas International 54, Xobin 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 58% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Thomas International
Thomas International provides psychometric and aptitude assessments (behaviour/DISC, cognitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence) with an AI coaching layer, used for hiring, candidate selection and employee development.
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
Thomas International and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Thomas International | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | IN |
| Founded | 1981 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Xobin 62
1.6 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Xobin 58
0.8 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Xobin 35
0.3 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Xobin 38
0.2 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 43 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 57 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 58 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 50 (F) | -2 | -2.5 |
§ 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 | Thomas International | 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% | 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% | 1 | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International 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