§ The result
Dayforce leads Jack & Jill by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Dayforce, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 57 and Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, on 49, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Dayforce: Dayforce is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Jack & Jill on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Dayforce 74, Jack & Jill 44 — and at a 20% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Dayforce holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Dayforce
Dayforce is an enterprise human capital management platform whose Dayforce Recruiting module uses AI to assign letter grades to external job applicants, generate job descriptions, and automate screening and hiring workflows alongside HR, payroll, time, talent, and 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
Dayforce 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.
| Record | Dayforce | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1992 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Dayforce 74 · Jack & Jill 44
6.0 weighted points to Dayforce
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Dayforce 42 · Jack & Jill 62
3.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Dayforce 63 · Jack & Jill 48
2.3 weighted points to Dayforce
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Dayforce 40 · Jack & Jill 28
1.8 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Dayforce 68 · Jack & Jill 58
1.2 weighted points to Dayforce
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Dayforce 70 · Jack & Jill 56
1.1 weighted points to Dayforce
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Dayforce 47 · Jack & Jill 48
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Dayforce minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Dayforce | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 74 | 44 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 40 | 28 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 63 | 48 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 48 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 56 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 49 (F) | +8 | +8.7 |
§ 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 | Dayforce | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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% | 4 | 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% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Dayforce has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 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 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Dayforce, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Dayforce last reviewed
- August 2, 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