§ The result
2 points separate Jack & Jill and Covey.
Within the Sourcing cohort, Jack & Jill edges Covey by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 47. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Jack & Jill: Jack & Jill is ahead on Post-Market Monitoring and Covey on Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, is both the widest raw gap (Covey 30, Jack & Jill 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 52% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Covey
Covey is an AI recruiting platform whose Covey Scout product trains generative-AI bots from plain-language hiring criteria to source, evaluate, and rank candidate profiles for outbound sourcing and inbound applicant screening.
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
Covey and Jack & Jill are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Covey | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Covey 30 · Jack & Jill 48
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Covey 72 · Jack & Jill 62
1.8 weighted points to Covey
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Covey 40 · Jack & Jill 44
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Covey 52 · Jack & Jill 58
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Covey 52 · Jack & Jill 48
0.6 weighted points to Covey
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Covey 25 · Jack & Jill 28
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Covey 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Covey
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Covey minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Covey | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 72 | 62 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 49 (F) | -2 | -1.6 |
§ 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 | Covey | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 0 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 6 | 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 |
Covey has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 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 Covey and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 11 for Covey, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Covey last reviewed
- June 7, 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