§ The result
Xobin leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Assessment, Xobin and Turing come out 50 and 36 under rubric v1.0, 14 points in favour of Xobin. Of the 7 criteria Turing wins none, and the narrowest lead Xobin holds is on FRIA Support, Turing 25 to Xobin 35. The advantage Xobin holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Turing 42, Xobin 62, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 29% of the weighted points Xobin gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
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
Turing and Xobin are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Turing | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Turing 42 · Xobin 62
4.0 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Turing 28 · Xobin 43
2.7 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Turing 44 · Xobin 57
1.9 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Turing 45 · Xobin 58
1.6 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Turing 25 · Xobin 35
1.5 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Turing 27 · Xobin 38
1.3 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Turing 48 · Xobin 60
1.0 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Turing minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Turing | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 43 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 45 | 58 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 27 | 38 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 36 (F) | 50 (F) | -14 | -14.0 |
§ 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 | Turing | 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 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 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% | 8 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for Turing, across 1 distinct source domain, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Turing 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