§ The result
HeyMilo leads Jack & Jill by 12 points.
HeyMilo, filed under Screening, comes out 12 points above Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing: 61 (D) against 49 (F) under rubric v1.0. HeyMilo leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Jack & Jill leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring. The advantage HeyMilo holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HeyMilo 83, Jack & Jill 62, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 31% of the weighted points HeyMilo gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HeyMilo
HeyMilo is an AI recruiter for high-volume hiring whose voice and video AI agent conducts and scores async and live conversational screening interviews against recruiter-defined rubrics and syncs results to the customer's ATS.
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
HeyMilo is filed under Screening AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only HeyMilo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HeyMilo | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2023 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HeyMilo 83 · Jack & Jill 62
3.8 weighted points to HeyMilo
20% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HeyMilo 58 · Jack & Jill 44
2.8 weighted points to HeyMilo
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HeyMilo 42 · Jack & Jill 28
2.1 weighted points to HeyMilo
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HeyMilo 62 · Jack & Jill 48
2.1 weighted points to HeyMilo
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HeyMilo 66 · Jack & Jill 56
0.8 weighted points to HeyMilo
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HeyMilo 64 · Jack & Jill 58
0.7 weighted points to HeyMilo
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HeyMilo 46 · Jack & Jill 48
0.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +12.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HeyMilo minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | HeyMilo | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 62 | +21 | +3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 64 | 58 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 46 | 48 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 56 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 49 (F) | +12 | +12.1 |
§ 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 | HeyMilo | 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% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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% | 3 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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% | 18 | 3 | 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 |
HeyMilo has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 3 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 HeyMilo and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for HeyMilo, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HeyMilo 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.
§ Where next