§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Humanly by 7 points.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Humanly 42 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Humanly takes 2 of the 7 criteria, FRIA Support among them, against 4 for Jack & Jill, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Humanly 40, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 52% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Humanly
Conversational AI for high-volume recruiting that engages, screens, and schedules candidates across chat, SMS, email, voice, and video, with structured AI interviews and automated scoring.
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
Humanly is filed under Screening AI, Jack & Jill under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Humanly is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Humanly | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Humanly 40 · Jack & Jill 62
4.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Humanly 30 · Jack & Jill 48
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Humanly 40 · Jack & Jill 48
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Humanly 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to Humanly
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Humanly 52 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Humanly 45 · Jack & Jill 44
0.2 weighted points to Humanly
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.9 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 -6.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Humanly minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Humanly | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 44 | +1 | +0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 48 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 48 | -18 | -2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 49 (F) | -7 | -6.4 |
§ 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 | Humanly | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 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% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Humanly 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