§ The result
Alva Labs leads Jack & Jill by 12 points.
Alva Labs, filed under Assessment, comes out 12 points above Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing: 61 (D) against 49 (F) under rubric v1.0. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Alva Labs: Alva Labs is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Jack & Jill on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Alva Labs 78, Jack & Jill 44 — and at a 20% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Alva Labs holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Alva Labs
Alva Labs sells a science-backed hiring platform whose core is a suite of proprietary psychometric assessments - an adaptive logic (general mental ability) test, a Five-Factor Model personality test, and coding tests - wrapped in candidate management, CV screening, and structured-interview tooling.
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
Alva Labs 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, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Alva Labs is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alva Labs | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | SE | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alva Labs 78 · Jack & Jill 44
6.8 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alva Labs 68 · Jack & Jill 48
3.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alva Labs 38 · Jack & Jill 28
1.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
8% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alva Labs 68 · Jack & Jill 56
1.0 weighted points to Alva Labs
18% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alva Labs 58 · Jack & Jill 62
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alva Labs 63 · Jack & Jill 58
0.6 weighted points to Alva Labs
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alva Labs 52 · Jack & Jill 48
0.5 weighted points to Alva Labs
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +12.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alva Labs minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Alva Labs | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 44 | +34 | +6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 68 | 48 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 56 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 49 (F) | +12 | +12.6 |
§ 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 | Alva Labs | 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% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 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% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alva Labs has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 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 Alva Labs and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for Alva Labs, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alva Labs last reviewed
- August 2, 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