§ The result
2 points separate Jack & Jill and isolved.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges isolved (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 47. isolved and Jack & Jill each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Jack & Jill holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (isolved 45, Jack & Jill 62) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 86% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
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
isolved 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 | isolved | Jack & Jill |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1986 | 2025 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
isolved 45 · Jack & Jill 62
3.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
isolved 50 · Jack & Jill 44
1.2 weighted points to isolved
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
isolved 53 · Jack & Jill 48
0.8 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
isolved 55 · Jack & Jill 58
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
isolved 30 · Jack & Jill 28
0.3 weighted points to isolved
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
isolved 47 · Jack & Jill 48
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is isolved minus Jack & Jill.
| Category | Weight | isolved | Jack & Jill | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 28 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 48 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 48 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 49 (F) | -2 | -1.3 |
§ 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 | isolved | Jack & Jill | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 5 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | 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 |
isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 isolved and Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 72 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains, and 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- isolved 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