§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Harri by 8 points.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Harri 41 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of Jack & Jill: Jack & Jill is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Harri on FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Harri 22, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 67% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
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
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Harri | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2012 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harri 22 · Jack & Jill 62
7.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harri 44 · Jack & Jill 28
2.4 weighted points to Harri
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harri 35 · Jack & Jill 44
1.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harri 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harri 52 · Jack & Jill 58
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harri 52 · Jack & Jill 48
0.6 weighted points to Harri
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harri 60 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 44 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 62 | -40 | -7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 28 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 49 (F) | -8 | -7.4 |
§ 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 | Harri | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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 | Sources 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% | 2 | 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% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 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 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri 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