§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads Jack & Jill by 8 points.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) scores 57 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Sourcing cohort. Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Jack & Jill leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 6 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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
Jack & Jill and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
4.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
1.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
1.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35
1.1 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
0.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.3 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 84 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 57 (F) | -8 | -8.0 |
§ 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 12 | 4 | 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) last reviewed
- June 7, 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