Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Gloat vs Jack & Jill
Gloat
Gloat is an AI-powered internal talent marketplace and "agentic HR" platform that matches an employer's existing employees to internal job openings, gigs, projects, mentorships, and learning based on inferred skills and career goals.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Gloat takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill and Gloat finish 2 points apart, 49 to 47, as two Sourcing entries. Gloat leads more of the criteria, 4 against 2 for Jack & Jill, yet Jack & Jill takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Gloat 38, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 86% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Gloat4
- Jack & Jill2
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency38 vs 62
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Gloat and Jack & Jill are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Gloat is in scope of
| Record | Gloat | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2025 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight52% of the movement so far
Gloat38Jack & Jill624.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight70% of the movement so far
Gloat58Jack & Jill481.5 weighted points to Gloat
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight80% of the movement so far
Gloat48Jack & Jill440.8 weighted points to Gloat
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight88% of the movement so far
Gloat42Jack & Jill480.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight94% of the movement so far
Gloat62Jack & Jill580.5 weighted points to Gloat
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Gloat62Jack & Jill560.5 weighted points to Gloat
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gloat minus Jack & Jill, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Gloat | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 44 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 47F | 49F | -2 | -1.8 |
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 | Gloat | 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% | 2 | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | 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 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Gloat has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 8 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 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Gloat, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gloat 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
Scored against