§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Draup by 7 points.
Inside the Sourcing cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Jack & Jill on 49 and Draup on 42, 7 points apart. Draup and Jack & Jill each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Jack & Jill holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Draup 33, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 65% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup 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 | Draup | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Jack & Jill 62
5.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Jack & Jill 48
2.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Jack & Jill 48
0.9 weighted points to Draup
20% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Jack & Jill 44
0.8 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Jack & Jill 28
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Jack & Jill 56
0.1 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 44 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 62 | -29 | -5.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 48 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 48 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 49 (F) | -7 | -6.3 |
§ 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 | Draup | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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 a separate 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% | 5 | 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% | 4 | 1 | 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 domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | 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 |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup 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