§ The result
Jack & Jill leads JobDiva on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill (Sourcing) opens a 20-point lead on JobDiva (ATS-integrated), 49 to 29. Jack & Jill leads every one of the 7 criteria, JobDiva none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Jack & Jill 28 to JobDiva 22. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, JobDiva 15 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 7 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
JobDiva
JobDiva is an all-in-one ATS, CRM, onboarding, back-office and VMS-synchronization platform for staffing agencies, with AI features including DivaMatch candidate-to-job scoring, AI-enhanced matching and semantic search, resume harvesting and generative outreach.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, JobDiva under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Jack & Jill is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Jack & Jill | JobDiva |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2003 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · JobDiva 15
8.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · JobDiva 28
3.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · JobDiva 40
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · JobDiva 30
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · JobDiva 38
1.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · JobDiva 42
1.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · JobDiva 22
0.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +20 beside that +19.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus JobDiva.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | JobDiva | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 28 | +16 | +3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 15 | +47 | +8.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 22 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 42 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 29 (F) | +20 | +19.5 |
§ 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 | JobDiva | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 4 | 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 | 20 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Jack & Jill has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; JobDiva has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 8 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 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for JobDiva, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- JobDiva 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