Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs Jack & Jill
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
Concerning
ATS-integrated
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
Greenhouse leads Jack & Jill on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Greenhouse (ATS-integrated) opens an 18-point lead on Jack & Jill (Sourcing), 67 (D) to 49 (F). Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria, Jack & Jill none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Greenhouse 66 to Jack & Jill 58. The advantage Greenhouse holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Greenhouse 78, Jack & Jill 44, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points Greenhouse gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- Jack & Jill0
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation78 vs 44
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Greenhouse | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2025 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight37% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78Jack & Jill446.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight60% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86Jack & Jill624.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight73% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Jack & Jill482.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight85% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42Jack & Jill282.1 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58Jack & Jill481.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight97% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66Jack & Jill581.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64Jack & Jill560.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +18.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +18 beside that +18.4.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Jack & Jill, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 44 | +34 | +6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 62 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 48 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 56 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 67D | 49F | +18 | +18.4 |
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 | Greenhouse | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 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% | 2 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | 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 |
Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 Greenhouse 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 Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse 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.