§ The result
Checkr leads Jack & Jill by 5 points.
Checkr scores 54 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. Checkr leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Jack & Jill leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Checkr (Checkr 70, Jack & Jill 44), 52% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Bias Audit Transparency, Checkr 35 to Jack & Jill 62.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
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
Checkr is filed under Screening 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, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Checkr | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Jack & Jill 44
5.2 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Jack & Jill 62
4.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Jack & Jill 48
2.1 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Jack & Jill 58
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Jack & Jill 56
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Jack & Jill 28
0.6 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Jack & Jill 48
0.2 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 44 | +26 | +5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 62 | -27 | -4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 56 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 49 (F) | +5 | +5.2 |
§ 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 | Checkr | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources 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 | 0 | 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% | 4 | 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% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 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 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr 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