§ The result
HiPeople leads Jack & Jill on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople sits 12 points above Jack & Jill under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 49 (F) — with HiPeople filed under Assessment and Jack & Jill under Sourcing. HiPeople takes all 7 criteria and Jack & Jill none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, HiPeople 62 to Jack & Jill 58. The advantage HiPeople holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (HiPeople 84, Jack & Jill 62, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 31% of the weighted points HiPeople gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
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
HiPeople 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 HiPeople is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | GB |
| Founded | 2019 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Jack & Jill 62
4.0 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Jack & Jill 44
3.6 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Jack & Jill 48
1.5 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Jack & Jill 48
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Jack & Jill 56
0.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Jack & Jill 58
0.5 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.8 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 +12.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 44 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 62 | +22 | +4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 56 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 49 (F) | +12 | +12.8 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | 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 |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 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 HiPeople and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople 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