§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, HighMatch takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and HighMatch, filed under Assessment, on 43, 6 points apart. HighMatch leads more of the criteria, 5 against 2 for Jack & Jill, yet Jack & Jill takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HighMatch 30, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 86% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
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
HighMatch is filed under Assessment AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HighMatch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HighMatch | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2005 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HighMatch 30 · Jack & Jill 62
5.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HighMatch 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HighMatch 52 · Jack & Jill 48
0.6 weighted points to HighMatch
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HighMatch 30 · Jack & Jill 28
0.3 weighted points to HighMatch
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HighMatch 60 · Jack & Jill 58
0.2 weighted points to HighMatch
20% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HighMatch 45 · Jack & Jill 44
0.2 weighted points to HighMatch
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HighMatch 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to HighMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HighMatch minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | HighMatch | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 44 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 62 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 49 (F) | -6 | -5.2 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 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% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 31 | 4 | 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 |
HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 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 HighMatch and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HighMatch 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