§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Fetcher by 12 points.
Jack & Jill sits 12 points above Fetcher under rubric v1.0, 49 against 37, with both filed under Sourcing. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Jack & Jill: Jack & Jill is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Fetcher on Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 28, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
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
Fetcher 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 | Fetcher | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · Jack & Jill 62
6.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fetcher 27 · Jack & Jill 44
3.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fetcher 35 · Jack & Jill 48
1.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · Jack & Jill 48
1.1 weighted points to Fetcher
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · Jack & Jill 58
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fetcher 25 · Jack & Jill 28
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · Jack & Jill 56
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -11.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 44 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 62 | -34 | -6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 56 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 49 (F) | -12 | -11.3 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher 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