§ The result
3 points separate HiringBranch and Jack & Jill.
HiringBranch holds a 3-point edge over Jack & Jill under rubric v1.0, 52 to 49, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Jack & Jill takes 3 of the 7 criteria, Post-Market Monitoring among them, against 4 for HiringBranch, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiringBranch 60, Jack & Jill 44 — and at a 20% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
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
HiringBranch 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 HiringBranch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiringBranch | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | CA | GB |
| Founded | 2014 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiringBranch 60 · Jack & Jill 44
3.2 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiringBranch 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiringBranch 55 · Jack & Jill 48
1.1 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiringBranch 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiringBranch 52 · Jack & Jill 58
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiringBranch 64 · Jack & Jill 56
0.6 weighted points to HiringBranch
18% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiringBranch 60 · Jack & Jill 62
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiringBranch minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | HiringBranch | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 44 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 48 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 56 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 49 (F) | +3 | +3.9 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 2 | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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