This question cannot be clearly answered. I would suggest to check both possibilities and chose the one, that worked best.
Using the output of one model as input to the other model
I guess, you know, what you have to do to use the output of the NN as input to XGBoost. You should just take some time, about how you handle the test and train data (see below). Use the "probabilities" rather than the binary labels for that. Of course, you could also try it vice-versa, so that the NN gets the output of the XGBoost model as an additional input.
Using a Votingclassifier
The other possibility is to use a VotingClassifier using soft-voting. You can use VotingClassifier(voting='soft') for that (to be precise sklearn.ensemble.VotingClassifier). You could also play around with the weights here.
Difference
The big difference is, that with the first possibility the XGBoost model might learn, in what areas the NN is weak and in which it is strong, while with the VotingClassifier the outputs of both models are equally weighted for all samples and it relies on the assumption that the model output a "probability" not so close to 0 / 1 if they are not so confident about the prediciton of the specific input record. But this assumption might not be always true.
Handling of the Train/Testdata
In both cases, you need to think about, how you should handle the train/test data. The train/test data should ideally be split the same way for both models. Otherwise you might introduce some kind of data-leakage problem. For the VotingClassifier this is no problem, because it can be used as a regular skearn model class. For the first method (output of model 1 is one feature of model 2), you should make sure, you do the train-test-split (or the cross-validation) with exactly the same records. If you don't do that, you would run the risk to validate the output of your second model on a record which was in the training set of model 1 (except for the additonal feature of course) and this clearly could cause a data-leakage problem which results in a score that appears to be better than how the model would actually perform on unseen productive data.