§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, HiBob takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges HiBob (ATS-integrated) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46. HiBob leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 5 to 2 — 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 (HiBob 20, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 98% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
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
HiBob 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 | HiBob | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiBob 20 · Jack & Jill 62
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiBob 55 · Jack & Jill 44
2.2 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiBob 57 · Jack & Jill 48
1.3 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiBob 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiBob 63 · Jack & Jill 58
0.6 weighted points to HiBob
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiBob 61 · Jack & Jill 56
0.4 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiBob 47 · Jack & Jill 48
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.3 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 -2.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiBob minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | HiBob | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 62 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 58 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 48 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 61 | 56 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 49 (F) | -3 | -2.1 |
§ 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 | HiBob | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 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% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 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% | 29 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 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 72 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiBob 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