§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Coderbyte takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and Coderbyte, filed under Assessment, on 42, 7 points apart. Coderbyte leads more of the criteria, 4 against 2 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 — Coderbyte 20, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 89% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Coderbyte
Coderbyte is a technical hiring platform offering coding assessments with automated and AI grading of challenges and take-home projects, live coding interviews, and AI screening that grades resumes against job-description criteria and runs agentic phone screens.
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
Coderbyte 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, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Coderbyte is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Coderbyte | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · Jack & Jill 62
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · Jack & Jill 48
1.2 weighted points to Coderbyte
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · Jack & Jill 28
0.8 weighted points to Coderbyte
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · Jack & Jill 58
0.2 weighted points to Coderbyte
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Coderbyte
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 44 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 62 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 28 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 49 (F) | -7 | -6.2 |
§ 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 | Coderbyte | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | Audit reportSources 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 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 Coderbyte and 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 Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte 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