§ The result
Codility leads Jack & Jill by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Codility, filed under Assessment, finishes on 54 and Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, on 49, 5 points apart. Jack & Jill takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 6 for Codility, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Bias Audit Transparency (Codility 45, Jack & Jill 62) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Codility 60, Jack & Jill 44), the second being 39% of the weighted advantage Codility holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Codility
Codility is a technical/coding assessment platform that screens and interviews software engineers with work-sample coding tests, live technical interviews, and integrity tooling including plagiarism and AI-use detection.
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
Codility 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 Codility is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Codility | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2009 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Codility 60 · Jack & Jill 44
3.2 weighted points to Codility
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Codility 45 · Jack & Jill 62
3.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Codility 42 · Jack & Jill 28
2.1 weighted points to Codility
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Codility 57 · Jack & Jill 48
1.3 weighted points to Codility
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Codility 66 · Jack & Jill 56
0.8 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Codility 62 · Jack & Jill 58
0.5 weighted points to Codility
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Codility 50 · Jack & Jill 48
0.2 weighted points to Codility
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 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 +5.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Codility minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Codility | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 44 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 56 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 49 (F) | +5 | +5.1 |
§ 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 | Codility | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Codility has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 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 Codility, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Codility 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