§ The result
Infor Talent Science and Jack & Jill tie at 49.
Infor Talent Science (Assessment) and Jack & Jill (Sourcing) tie at 49 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Infor Talent Science leads 4 of the 7 criteria and Jack & Jill 3, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Infor Talent Science 42, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 73% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Infor Talent Science
Infor Talent Science is a cloud-based pre-hire behavioral and cognitive assessment platform. It scores candidates against patented machine-learning 'Performance Profiles' built from the behavior and performance data of an employer's successful incumbents, and gives hiring teams fit scores, recommendations and interview questions that are used to rank and route applicants.
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
Infor Talent Science 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 Infor Talent Science is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Infor Talent Science | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2002 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Infor Talent Science 42 · Jack & Jill 62
3.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Infor Talent Science 58 · Jack & Jill 44
2.8 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Infor Talent Science 57 · Jack & Jill 48
1.3 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Infor Talent Science 35 · Jack & Jill 28
1.1 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Infor Talent Science 50 · Jack & Jill 58
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Infor Talent Science 45 · Jack & Jill 48
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Infor Talent Science 60 · Jack & Jill 56
0.3 weighted points to Infor Talent Science
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Infor Talent Science minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | Infor Talent Science | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 62 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 48 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 58 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 48 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 49 (F) | - | +0.6 |
§ 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 | Infor Talent Science | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Infor Talent Science has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 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 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Infor Talent Science, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Infor Talent Science 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