§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Manatal takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Manatal 41 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. Manatal leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Jack & Jill leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Jack & Jill. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Manatal 22) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 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
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Manatal 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. Only Manatal is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Manatal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | TH |
| Founded | 2025 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Manatal 22
7.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Manatal 33
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Manatal 33
0.8 weighted points to Manatal
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Manatal 52
0.6 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Manatal 43
0.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Manatal 62
0.5 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Manatal 60
0.2 weighted points to Manatal
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.1 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 +7.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Manatal.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Manatal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 33 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 22 | +40 | +7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 43 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 41 (F) | +8 | +7.9 |
§ 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 | Manatal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 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 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | 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; Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 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 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Manatal 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