§ The result
4 points separate Jack & Jill and Dover.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill and Dover finish 4 points apart, 49 to 45, as two Sourcing entries. Dover and Jack & Jill each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Jack & Jill holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Dover 34, Jack & Jill 44) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 47% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Dover
Dover is an AI recruiting platform for startups offering a free applicant tracking system, candidate sourcing via a LinkedIn/Copilot browser extension, OpenAI/Anthropic-powered 0-100 applicant scoring, and a fractional-recruiter marketplace.
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
Dover and Jack & Jill are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Jack & Jill is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Dover | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Dover 34 · Jack & Jill 44
2.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
18% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Dover 52 · Jack & Jill 62
1.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Dover 44 · Jack & Jill 48
0.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Dover 60 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Dover
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Dover 30 · Jack & Jill 28
0.3 weighted points to Dover
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Dover 50 · Jack & Jill 48
0.3 weighted points to Dover
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Dover minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Dover | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 34 | 44 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 49 (F) | -4 | -3.4 |
§ 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 | Dover | 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 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% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 13 | 4 | 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 |
Dover has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 Dover and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Dover, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Dover 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