§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Avature takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges Avature (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48. Avature leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Jack & Jill leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Jack & Jill. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Avature 40, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 80% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Avature
Avature is an enterprise talent acquisition and talent management platform (recruiting CRM, ATS, onboarding and internal mobility) with built-in AI for semantic search, explainable weighted candidate matching and ranking, candidate fraud detection and configurable recruiting 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
Avature 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 | Avature | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2004 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Avature 40 · Jack & Jill 62
4.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Avature 55 · Jack & Jill 44
2.2 weighted points to Avature
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Avature 58 · Jack & Jill 48
1.5 weighted points to Avature
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Avature 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Avature 32 · Jack & Jill 28
0.6 weighted points to Avature
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Avature 60 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Avature
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Avature 60 · Jack & Jill 58
0.2 weighted points to Avature
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Avature minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Avature | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 49 (F) | -1 | -0.1 |
§ 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 | Avature | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | — | 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% | 5 | 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% | 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 |
Avature 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 Avature 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 Avature, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Avature 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