HomeCompareClearCo (ClearCompany) vs Jack & Jill

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

ClearCo (ClearCompany) vs Jack & Jill

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Jack & Jill takes the total, ClearCo (ClearCompany) takes more of the criteria.

Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges ClearCo (ClearCompany) (ATS-integrated) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46. ClearCo (ClearCompany) leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 5 to 2 — 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 (ClearCo (ClearCompany) 28, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 82% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 criteria it leads.

§ The record

ClearCo (ClearCompany) 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.

RecordClearCo (ClearCompany)Jack & Jill
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded20042025

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 49% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    ClearCo (ClearCompany) 28 · Jack & Jill 62

    6.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill

  2. 20% weight · 69% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    ClearCo (ClearCompany) 56 · Jack & Jill 44

    2.4 weighted points to ClearCo (ClearCompany)

  3. 15% weight · 80% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    ClearCo (ClearCompany) 57 · Jack & Jill 48

    1.3 weighted points to ClearCo (ClearCompany)

  4. 12% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    ClearCo (ClearCompany) 37 · Jack & Jill 48

    1.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill

  5. 12% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    ClearCo (ClearCompany) 63 · Jack & Jill 58

    0.6 weighted points to ClearCo (ClearCompany)

  6. 8% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    ClearCo (ClearCompany) 60 · Jack & Jill 56

    0.3 weighted points to ClearCo (ClearCompany)

  7. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    ClearCo (ClearCompany) 30 · Jack & Jill 28

    0.3 weighted points to ClearCo (ClearCompany)

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.5.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is ClearCo (ClearCompany) minus Jack & Jill.

CategoryWeightClearCo (ClearCompany)Jack & JillΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5644+12+2.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%2862-34-6.1
FRIA Support15%3028+2+0.3
Data Governance Disclosure15%5748+9+1.3
Human Oversight Design12%6358+5+0.6
Post-Market Monitoring12%3748-11-1.3
Customer Documentation8%6056+4+0.3
Total100%46 (F)49 (F)-3-2.5

§ 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.

CriterionWeightClearCo (ClearCompany)Jack & Jill
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%41Sources on a separate domain60Audit reportSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Audit reportSources on a separate domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%60Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain71Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%61Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain80Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%42Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%317Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain315Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain

ClearCo (ClearCompany) has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 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 ClearCo (ClearCompany) and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for ClearCo (ClearCompany), across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 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.