§ The result
3 points separate Glider AI and Jack & Jill.
Glider AI (Assessment) edges Jack & Jill (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 52 to 49. Glider AI leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Jack & Jill leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Glider AI 52, Jack & Jill 44, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 32% of the weighted advantage Glider AI holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
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
Glider AI 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 Glider AI is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Glider AI | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2020 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Glider AI 52 · Jack & Jill 44
1.6 weighted points to Glider AI
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Glider AI 68 · Jack & Jill 62
1.1 weighted points to Glider AI
15% weight · 59% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Glider AI 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to Glider AI
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Glider AI 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Glider AI 54 · Jack & Jill 48
0.9 weighted points to Glider AI
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Glider AI 55 · Jack & Jill 58
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Glider AI 60 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Glider AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 48 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 49 (F) | +3 | +3.6 |
§ 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 | Glider AI | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 6 | 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 |
Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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 Glider AI and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI last reviewed
- September 25, 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