§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Cezanne Recruitment by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and Cezanne Recruitment, filed under ATS-integrated, on 41, 8 points apart. Jack & Jill leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cezanne Recruitment leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cezanne Recruitment 24, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 84% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cezanne Recruitment
Cezanne Recruitment (formerly Occupop) is an applicant tracking system for SMEs that handles job posting, candidate management and interview scheduling. In its Recruitment PLUS+ tier it uses AI to score each CV from 0 to 100 against the job description, alongside weighted screening-question scores, knockout filters and optional AI anonymisation of CVs for hiring-manager review.
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
Cezanne Recruitment 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 | Cezanne Recruitment | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cezanne Recruitment 24 · Jack & Jill 62
6.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cezanne Recruitment 54 · Jack & Jill 48
0.9 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cezanne Recruitment 40 · Jack & Jill 44
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cezanne Recruitment 44 · Jack & Jill 48
0.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cezanne Recruitment 57 · Jack & Jill 56
0.1 weighted points to Cezanne Recruitment
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -7.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cezanne Recruitment minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Cezanne Recruitment | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 24 | 62 | -38 | -6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 48 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 49 (F) | -8 | -7.1 |
§ 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 | Cezanne Recruitment | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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 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% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 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% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cezanne Recruitment has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Cezanne Recruitment, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cezanne Recruitment 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