§ The result
Hireology leads Jack & Jill by 8 points.
Hireology scores 57 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Jack & Jill takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Hireology, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Hireology 83, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 47% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
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
Hireology 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 | Hireology | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2010 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Jack & Jill 62
3.8 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Jack & Jill 48
1.3 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Jack & Jill 44
1.2 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Jack & Jill 48
0.6 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Jack & Jill 56
0.2 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Jack & Jill 58
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.0 — 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 +8 beside that +8.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 62 | +21 | +3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 48 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 48 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 49 (F) | +8 | +8.0 |
§ 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 | Hireology | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 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 |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 Hireology and 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 Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology 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