§ The result
Jack & Jill and Lever tie at 49.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) and Lever (ATS-integrated) tie at 49 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Jack & Jill leads 2 of the 7 criteria and Lever 5, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Lever 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 91% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 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
Lever
Lever is an AI-powered applicant tracking system and recruiting CRM that centralizes sourcing, candidate relationship management, AI candidate matching (Talent Fit), and hiring analytics for high-growth employers.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Lever 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 | Lever |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Lever 42
3.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Lever 52
1.6 weighted points to Lever
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Lever 58
1.5 weighted points to Lever
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Lever 32
0.6 weighted points to Lever
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Lever 45
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Lever 60
0.2 weighted points to Lever
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Lever 58
0.2 weighted points to Lever
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Lever.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Lever | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 49 (F) | - | -0.1 |
§ 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 | Lever | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 13 | 6 | Sources 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; Lever has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Lever sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Lever, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Lever 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