§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Adaface by 10 points.
Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, comes out 10 points above Adaface, filed under Assessment: 49 against 39 under rubric v1.0. Jack & Jill leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Adaface leads 3, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Adaface 22, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 68% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Adaface
Adaface runs chatbot-led 'conversational' skills tests for 500+ roles that score candidates automatically as pass, borderline pass or fail on benchmarked scorecards, backed by webcam, screen and IP proctoring and an AI résumé parser.
Vendor profile
Jack & Jill
Jack & Jill is a London AI recruiting marketplace. Its free career agent, Jack, interviews and profiles candidates, and its employer-side AI recruiter, Jill, turns a role brief into a scoring rubric, ranks candidates from Jack's network (and optionally public profiles) with a percentage match, and arranges introductions only when both sides agree.
§ The record
Adaface is filed under Assessment AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Adaface is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Adaface | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Adaface 22 · Jack & Jill 62
7.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Adaface 38 · Jack & Jill 44
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Adaface 38 · Jack & Jill 48
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Adaface 50 · Jack & Jill 58
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Adaface 52 · Jack & Jill 48
0.6 weighted points to Adaface
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Adaface 30 · Jack & Jill 28
0.3 weighted points to Adaface
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Adaface 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Adaface
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Adaface minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Adaface | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 44 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 62 | -40 | -7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 49 (F) | -10 | -9.5 |
§ 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 | Adaface | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Adaface has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Jack & Jill has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Adaface, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Adaface last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Jack & Jill 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