§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Ceipal on all 7 criteria.
Jack & Jill sits 14 points above Ceipal under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 35 — with Jack & Jill filed under Sourcing and Ceipal under ATS-integrated. Jack & Jill leads every one of the 7 criteria, Ceipal none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Ceipal 46 to Jack & Jill 48. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Ceipal 20, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 54% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Ceipal
AI-powered applicant tracking and workforce-management platform for staffing firms that sources, matches, and ranks candidates on a 1-to-100 scale against job requirements.
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
Ceipal is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Jack & Jill is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Ceipal | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Ceipal 20 · Jack & Jill 62
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Ceipal 30 · Jack & Jill 44
2.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Ceipal 46 · Jack & Jill 58
1.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Ceipal 38 · Jack & Jill 48
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Ceipal 25 · Jack & Jill 28
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Ceipal 46 · Jack & Jill 48
0.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Ceipal 53 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -14.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Ceipal minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Ceipal | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 30 | 44 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 62 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 46 | 48 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 46 | 58 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 53 | 56 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 35 (F) | 49 (F) | -14 | -14.0 |
§ 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 | Ceipal | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 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 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Ceipal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Ceipal, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Ceipal last reviewed
- July 17, 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