§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Loxo by 12 points.
Rubric v1.0 scores the Sourcing entries Jack & Jill and Loxo at 49 and 37, a gap of 12 points. Loxo takes 3 of the 7 criteria, FRIA Support among them, against 4 for Jack & Jill, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Loxo 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 62% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 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
Loxo
Loxo is an AI-native talent-intelligence platform that combines candidate sourcing, a recruiting CRM, and an applicant tracking system, using proprietary ranking models and a self-built talent graph of 800M+ people to source, rank, and match candidates for recruiting and staffing firms.
§ The record
Jack & Jill and Loxo are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | Loxo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2012 |
§ 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 · Loxo 20
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Loxo 30
2.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Loxo 50
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Loxo 40
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Loxo 30
0.3 weighted points to Loxo
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Loxo 50
0.3 weighted points to Loxo
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Loxo 58
0.2 weighted points to Loxo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.5 — 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 +11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Loxo.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Loxo | 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 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 37 (F) | +12 | +11.5 |
§ 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 | Loxo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 7 | Audit reportSources 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; Loxo has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Loxo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Loxo last reviewed
- July 17, 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