§ The result
Harver leads Jack & Jill by 7 points.
Harver scores 56 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Jack & Jill takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Harver, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Harver 65, Jack & Jill 44) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 43% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Harver
Pre-employment assessment suite covering cognitive ability, behavioral, and situational judgement, including the legacy Pymetrics games product.
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
Harver 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 Harver is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Harver | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harver 65 · Jack & Jill 44
4.2 weighted points to Harver
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harver 80 · Jack & Jill 62
3.2 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harver 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to Harver
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harver 55 · Jack & Jill 48
1.1 weighted points to Harver
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harver 50 · Jack & Jill 58
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harver 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harver 60 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Harver
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harver minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Harver | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 65 | 44 | +21 | +4.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 62 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 56 (F) | 49 (F) | +7 | +7.9 |
§ 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 | Harver | 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 the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 1 | 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% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 0 | — | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 10 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 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 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harver last reviewed
- May 21, 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