§ The result
Jack & Jill leads hireEZ by 7 points.
Inside the Sourcing cohort, rubric v1.0 puts Jack & Jill on 49 and hireEZ on 42, 7 points apart. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Jack & Jill, with 1 level: Jack & Jill is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and hireEZ on Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hireEZ 30, Jack & Jill 62 — and at an 18% weight it carries 67% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
hireEZ
AI-powered outbound recruiting platform that sources, matches, screens, engages, and schedules candidates on top of a customer's existing 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
hireEZ and Jack & Jill are both filed 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 | hireEZ | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
hireEZ 30 · Jack & Jill 62
5.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
hireEZ 60 · Jack & Jill 48
1.8 weighted points to hireEZ
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
hireEZ 38 · Jack & Jill 44
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
hireEZ 38 · Jack & Jill 48
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
hireEZ 25 · Jack & Jill 28
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
hireEZ 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to hireEZ
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 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 -6.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hireEZ minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | hireEZ | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 44 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 62 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 48 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 48 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 49 (F) | -7 | -6.7 |
§ 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 | hireEZ | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 1 | 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% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 9 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
hireEZ has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 14 for hireEZ, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hireEZ 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