§ The result
3 points separate Jack & Jill and Korn Ferry.
Jack & Jill holds a 3-point edge over Korn Ferry under rubric v1.0, 49 to 46, across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Korn Ferry takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 5 for Jack & Jill, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. The heaviest weighted swing runs the other way — Korn Ferry takes Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20%, Jack & Jill 44 to Korn Ferry 58, 82% of the weighted advantage Korn Ferry holds — while the widest raw gap sits on Post-Market Monitoring, Jack & Jill 48 to Korn Ferry 33.
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
Korn Ferry
Korn Ferry provides psychometric talent assessments (Korn Ferry Assess, the KF4D Four Dimensional assessment, KFALP leadership-potential assessment, and the Leadership Architect competency framework) used to evaluate candidates' personality, competencies, drivers, and cognitive ability for selection, promotion, and development decisions.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Korn Ferry under Assessment 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. Only Korn Ferry is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Korn Ferry |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 1969 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Korn Ferry 58
2.8 weighted points to Korn Ferry
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Korn Ferry 48
2.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Korn Ferry 33
1.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Korn Ferry 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Korn Ferry 52
0.6 weighted points to Korn Ferry
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Korn Ferry 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Korn Ferry 52
0.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Korn Ferry.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Korn Ferry | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 52 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 46 (F) | +3 | +2.4 |
§ 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 | Korn Ferry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 10 | 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; Korn Ferry has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 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 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Korn Ferry, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Korn Ferry 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