§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Cangrade takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill holds a 4-point edge over Cangrade under rubric v1.0, 49 to 45, across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Cangrade leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Jack & Jill, yet Jack & Jill takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 69% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade 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, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Cangrade is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Jack & Jill 62
4.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Jack & Jill 48
1.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Jack & Jill 44
1.6 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Jack & Jill 48
0.9 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Jack & Jill 56
0.5 weighted points to Cangrade
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Jack & Jill 28
0.3 weighted points to Cangrade
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Jack & Jill 58
0.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 62 | -27 | -4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 48 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 48 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 49 (F) | -4 | -3.7 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 3 | — | 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 | 2 | 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 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | 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 |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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