§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Breezy HR takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Breezy HR 43 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. Breezy HR leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 4 to 3 — 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 (Breezy HR 25, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 81% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Breezy HR
Breezy HR is an SMB-focused applicant tracking system with a drag-and-drop hiring pipeline, multi-board job distribution, scorecards and interview scheduling, plus a credit-metered AI add-on ("Breezy Intelligence") that scores and ranks applicants against job requirements, audits resumes for AI-generated content, and summarizes candidate activity.
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
Breezy HR 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 | Breezy HR | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Breezy HR 25 · Jack & Jill 62
6.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Breezy HR 50 · Jack & Jill 44
1.2 weighted points to Breezy HR
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Breezy HR 38 · Jack & Jill 48
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Breezy HR 55 · Jack & Jill 48
1.1 weighted points to Breezy HR
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Breezy HR 55 · Jack & Jill 58
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Breezy HR 30 · Jack & Jill 28
0.3 weighted points to Breezy HR
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Breezy HR 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Breezy HR
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Breezy HR minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Breezy HR | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 25 | 62 | -37 | -6.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 49 (F) | -6 | -5.5 |
§ 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 | Breezy HR | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Sources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 9 | 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 |
Breezy HR has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 9 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 Breezy HR and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Breezy HR, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Breezy HR 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