§ The result
Ashby leads Jack & Jill by 7 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Ashby, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 56 and Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, on 49, 7 points apart. Ashby leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Jack & Jill leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Ashby 63, Jack & Jill 44 — and at a 20% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Ashby holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Ashby
Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining applicant tracking, CRM/sourcing, scheduling, and analytics, with embedded AI features including resume-to-criteria evaluation, AI-assisted application review, sourcing outreach, and scheduling agents.
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
Ashby is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing 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.
| Record | Ashby | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ashby 63 · Jack & Jill 44
3.8 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ashby 42 · Jack & Jill 28
2.1 weighted points to Ashby
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ashby 58 · Jack & Jill 48
1.5 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ashby 42 · Jack & Jill 48
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ashby 63 · Jack & Jill 56
0.6 weighted points to Ashby
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ashby 62 · Jack & Jill 58
0.5 weighted points to Ashby
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +7.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ashby minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Ashby | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 63 | 44 | +19 | +3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 63 | 56 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 49 (F) | +7 | +7.7 |
§ 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 | Ashby | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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% | 3 | 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% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Ashby has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 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 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Ashby, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ashby last reviewed
- June 7, 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