§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Keka by 12 points.
Jack & Jill sits 12 points above Keka under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 37 — with Jack & Jill filed under Sourcing and Keka under ATS-integrated. Keka takes 2 of the 7 criteria, FRIA Support among them, against 5 for Jack & Jill, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Keka 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 61% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Keka
Keka is an HR and payroll suite whose Keka Hire ATS scores each applicant against recruiter-defined role requirements and runs an AI screening conversation that decides which candidates reach the shortlist.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Keka 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 | Keka |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | IN |
| Founded | 2025 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Keka 20
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Keka 30
2.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Keka 50
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Keka 40
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Keka 30
0.3 weighted points to Keka
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Keka 50
0.3 weighted points to Keka
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Keka 55
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Keka.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Keka | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 37 (F) | +12 | +11.8 |
§ 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 | Keka | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 28 | 7 | 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; Keka has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 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 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Keka, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Keka 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