§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, JobAdder takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill holds a 4-point edge over JobAdder under rubric v1.0, 49 to 45, across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. JobAdder leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Jack & Jill, yet Jack & Jill takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, JobAdder 35 — and at an 18% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 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
JobAdder
JobAdder is a Sydney-based ATS and CRM for recruitment agencies and in-house teams whose Adder Intelligence layer, launched in November 2025 on LLMs hosted in Amazon Bedrock, gives every applicant an AI summary and relevancy rating and also drafts client-ready candidate overviews (Smart Floats), suggests skill codes, proposes record updates and writes job ads, alongside database skill matching.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, JobAdder 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 | JobAdder |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | AU |
| Founded | 2025 | 2007 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · JobAdder 35
4.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · JobAdder 50
1.2 weighted points to JobAdder
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · JobAdder 56
1.2 weighted points to JobAdder
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · JobAdder 43
0.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · JobAdder 54
0.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · JobAdder 30
0.3 weighted points to JobAdder
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · JobAdder 58
0.2 weighted points to JobAdder
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus JobAdder.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | JobAdder | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 35 | +27 | +4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 43 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 45 (F) | +4 | +3.1 |
§ 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 | JobAdder | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 24 | 5 | Audit reportSources 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; JobAdder has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and JobAdder sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for JobAdder, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- JobAdder 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