§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, HackerEarth takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges HackerEarth (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46. HackerEarth leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Jack & Jill leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Jack & Jill. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HackerEarth 35, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 84% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HackerEarth
HackerEarth is a technical-hiring platform that auto-scores coding assessments under AI proctoring, runs FaceCode live coding interviews with AI-generated summaries, and offers OnScreen, an AI video-avatar interviewer that scores candidates against a fixed rubric.
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
HackerEarth is filed under Assessment AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HackerEarth is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HackerEarth | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Jack & Jill 62
4.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Jack & Jill 44
2.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Jack & Jill 48
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Jack & Jill 28
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Jack & Jill 48
0.6 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Jack & Jill 58
0.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Jack & Jill 56
0.1 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.3 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 -2.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 62 | -27 | -4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 28 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 48 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 56 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 49 (F) | -3 | -2.3 |
§ 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 | HackerEarth | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 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% | 8 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 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 75 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth 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