§ The result
Xobin leads UKG on 5 of the 7 criteria.
Xobin scores 50 and UKG 44 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Xobin leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so UKG is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 Xobin leads is Data Governance Disclosure, UKG 56 to Xobin 57. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (UKG 48, Xobin 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Xobin holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
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
UKG 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 | UKG | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2020 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
UKG 48 · Xobin 62
2.8 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
UKG 30 · Xobin 43
2.3 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
UKG 52 · Xobin 58
0.7 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
UKG 55 · Xobin 60
0.4 weighted points to Xobin
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
UKG 56 · Xobin 57
0.1 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -6.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is UKG minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | UKG | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 43 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 57 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 38 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 60 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 50 (F) | -6 | -6.4 |
§ 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 | UKG | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 0 | 2 | — | 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 | 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% | 0 | 2 | — | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- UKG 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