Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Jack & Jill
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
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, hackajob takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill holds a 4-point edge over hackajob under rubric v1.0, 49 to 45, with both scored in the Sourcing cohort. hackajob leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 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 — hackajob 20, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 83% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob4
- Jack & Jill3
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 62
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob and Jack & Jill are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2025 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight51% of the movement so far
hackajob20Jack & Jill627.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight73% of the movement so far
hackajob60Jack & Jill443.2 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight83% of the movement so far
hackajob58Jack & Jill481.5 weighted points to hackajob
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
hackajob38Jack & Jill481.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight95% of the movement so far
hackajob32Jack & Jill280.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 6
Human Oversight Design
12% weight98% of the movement so far
hackajob55Jack & Jill580.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob60Jack & Jill560.3 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Jack & Jill, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 44 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 62 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 49F | -4 | -3.5 |
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 | hackajob | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 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 78 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob 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
Scored against