§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Equalture takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Equalture 44 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Equalture leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Jack & Jill leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Jack & Jill. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Equalture 40, 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
Equalture
Equalture is a game-based pre-employment assessment platform whose short browser games measure candidates' cognitive abilities and behavioural tendencies and convert them into a Fit Score ranked against an employer-specific "Success Profile" derived from that employer's own top performers.
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
Equalture 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 Equalture is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Equalture | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Equalture 40 · Jack & Jill 62
4.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Equalture 38 · Jack & Jill 48
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Equalture 55 · Jack & Jill 48
1.1 weighted points to Equalture
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Equalture 50 · Jack & Jill 58
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Equalture 60 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Equalture
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Equalture 30 · Jack & Jill 28
0.3 weighted points to Equalture
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Equalture 45 · Jack & Jill 44
0.2 weighted points to Equalture
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Equalture minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Equalture | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 44 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 49 (F) | -5 | -4.3 |
§ 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 | Equalture | 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 the vendor's own domain | 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% | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 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 domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Equalture has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 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 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 Equalture, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Equalture 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