§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Alooba by 11 points.
Jack & Jill sits 11 points above Alooba under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 38 — with Jack & Jill filed under Sourcing and Alooba under Assessment. Jack & Jill leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Alooba leads 1, including Customer Documentation, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Alooba 22, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 70% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
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
Alooba 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 Alooba is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | AU | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Jack & Jill 62
7.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Jack & Jill 48
1.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Jack & Jill 44
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Jack & Jill 48
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Jack & Jill 58
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Alooba
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -10.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -11 beside that -10.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 62 | -40 | -7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 48 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 49 (F) | -11 | -10.1 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 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% | 3 | 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 Alooba and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba 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