§ The result
Findem leads Jack & Jill by 9 points.
Findem scores 58 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Sourcing cohort. Jack & Jill takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 6 for Findem, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. The advantage Findem holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Findem 83, Jack & Jill 62, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 38% of the weighted points Findem gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Findem
AI talent-intelligence platform that uses 'attribute'/3D-data enrichment over 850M+ candidate profiles to power candidate search, sourcing, talent CRM, and agentic recruiting workflows.
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
Findem 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, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Findem | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Findem 83 · Jack & Jill 62
3.8 weighted points to Findem
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Findem 58 · Jack & Jill 44
2.8 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Findem 38 · Jack & Jill 28
1.5 weighted points to Findem
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Findem 57 · Jack & Jill 48
1.3 weighted points to Findem
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Findem 42 · Jack & Jill 48
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Findem 60 · Jack & Jill 58
0.2 weighted points to Findem
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Findem 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Findem
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Findem minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Findem | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 62 | +21 | +3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 28 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 58 (F) | 49 (F) | +9 | +9.1 |
§ 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 | Findem | 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% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 12 | 5 | 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 |
Findem has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 5 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 Findem 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 Findem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Findem last reviewed
- June 7, 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