§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Jack & Jill finishes 19 points clear of Cognisess under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 30 — across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Jack & Jill takes all 7 criteria and Cognisess none of them; the nearest contest is Data Governance Disclosure, Cognisess 42 to Jack & Jill 48. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Cognisess 20, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 41% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
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
Cognisess 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 Cognisess is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2011 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Jack & Jill 62
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Jack & Jill 44
3.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Jack & Jill 58
1.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Jack & Jill 48
1.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Jack & Jill 56
1.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Jack & Jill 28
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Jack & Jill 48
0.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -18.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -19 beside that -18.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 44 | -19 | -3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 62 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 58 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 48 | -16 | -1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 56 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 49 (F) | -19 | -18.6 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | 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 | — | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 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 Cognisess and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess 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