§ The result
Jack & Jill leads HireLogic on all 7 criteria.
Jack & Jill finishes 15 points clear of HireLogic under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 34 — across the Sourcing and Video interview cohorts. Jack & Jill takes all 7 criteria and HireLogic none of them; the nearest contest is Article 11 Technical Documentation, HireLogic 42 to Jack & Jill 44. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HireLogic 15, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HireLogic
HireLogic joins phone, video and in-person interviews to transcribe them and generate AI notes, job-description coverage, candidate insights and flags for potentially discriminatory interviewer questions, and also offers an asynchronous AI interview agent that scores candidates on relevance and depth of knowledge.
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
HireLogic is filed under Video interview AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only HireLogic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HireLogic | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HireLogic 15 · Jack & Jill 62
8.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HireLogic 28 · Jack & Jill 48
2.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HireLogic 48 · Jack & Jill 58
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HireLogic 45 · Jack & Jill 56
0.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HireLogic 25 · Jack & Jill 28
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HireLogic 45 · Jack & Jill 48
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HireLogic 42 · Jack & Jill 44
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -14.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HireLogic minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | HireLogic | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 44 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 15 | 62 | -47 | -8.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 48 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 56 | -11 | -0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 34 (F) | 49 (F) | -15 | -14.2 |
§ 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 | HireLogic | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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 | — | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 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% | 5 | 0 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HireLogic has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 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 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for HireLogic, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HireLogic 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