§ The result
Gem leads Jack & Jill by 6 points.
Gem scores 55 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the Sourcing cohort. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Gem: Gem is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Jack & Jill on Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Gem 58, Jack & Jill 44 — and at a 20% weight it carries 41% of the weighted advantage Gem holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Gem
Gem is an AI-first recruiting platform combining a talent CRM, AI sourcing and outreach automation, candidate engagement, and a newer applicant tracking system with AI-powered application review and ranking.
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
Gem 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 | Gem | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Gem 58 · Jack & Jill 44
2.8 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Gem 57 · Jack & Jill 48
1.3 weighted points to Gem
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Gem 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to Gem
18% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Gem 66 · Jack & Jill 62
0.7 weighted points to Gem
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Gem 62 · Jack & Jill 56
0.5 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Gem 61 · Jack & Jill 58
0.4 weighted points to Gem
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Gem 47 · Jack & Jill 48
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gem minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Gem | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 66 | 62 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 61 | 58 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 48 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 55 (F) | 49 (F) | +6 | +6.6 |
§ 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 | Gem | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 2 | 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 |
Gem has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 2 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 Gem and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Gem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gem 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