§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Mercor on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 26 points between Jack & Jill (Sourcing) and Mercor (Screening): 49 for Jack & Jill, 23 for Mercor. Jack & Jill leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Mercor leads none. The advantage Jack & Jill holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Jack & Jill 62, Mercor 10, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points Jack & Jill gains across the 7 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
Mercor
Mercor is an AI talent platform that runs automated 20-minute AI video interviews and semantic resume/profile matching to vet, score, and place candidates and expert contractors, and offers an enterprise applicant-screening product that scores employers' applicant pools against role rubrics with pass/fail recommendations.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Mercor under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Mercor is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Mercor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2023 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Mercor 10
9.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Mercor 22
4.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Mercor 22
3.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Mercor 20
3.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Mercor 42
1.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Mercor 40
1.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Mercor 20
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +25.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +26 beside that +25.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Mercor.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Mercor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 22 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 10 | +52 | +9.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 20 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 22 | +26 | +3.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 42 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 20 | +28 | +3.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 40 | +16 | +1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 23 (F) | +26 | +25.4 |
§ 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 | Mercor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | — |
| 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 | 8 | 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; Mercor has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 8 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Mercor, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Mercor 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