§ The result
Jack & Jill leads JazzHR by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and JazzHR, filed under ATS-integrated, on 44, 5 points apart. The criteria split evenly, 2 each to Jack & Jill and JazzHR, with 3 level, and the weighted points on the side Jack & Jill holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, JazzHR 35 — and at an 18% weight it carries 87% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
JazzHR
JazzHR is a small-business applicant tracking system that manages job posting, applications and hiring workflows, and layers on AI "Talent Fit" scoring that ranks candidates against a job description plus automated knockout screening questions.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, JazzHR under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Jack & Jill | JazzHR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2009 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · JazzHR 35
4.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · JazzHR 42
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · JazzHR 52
0.6 weighted points to JazzHR
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · JazzHR 45
0.2 weighted points to JazzHR
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +4.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus JazzHR.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | JazzHR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 45 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 35 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 44 (F) | +5 | +4.8 |
§ 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 | Jack & Jill | JazzHR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 17 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Jack & Jill has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; JazzHR has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and JazzHR sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 24 for JazzHR, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- JazzHR last reviewed
- August 2, 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