§ The result
Metaview leads Jack & Jill by 5 points.
Metaview scores 54 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. Jack & Jill takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 5 for Metaview, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Metaview 80) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Metaview holds across the 5 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
Metaview
Metaview is an AI recruiting platform whose agents transcribe and summarize interviews into structured notes and scorecards, and whose Application Review feature screens and ranks inbound applicants against an auto-generated Ideal Candidate Profile with fit ratings.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Metaview 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 Metaview is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Metaview |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2025 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Metaview 80
3.2 weighted points to Metaview
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Metaview 60
1.8 weighted points to Metaview
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Metaview 38
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Metaview 33
0.8 weighted points to Metaview
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Metaview 62
0.5 weighted points to Metaview
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Metaview 60
0.2 weighted points to Metaview
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Metaview.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Metaview | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 80 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 48 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 54 (F) | -5 | -5.3 |
§ 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 | Metaview | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 13 | 3 | Audit reportSources 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; Metaview has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Metaview 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 Metaview, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Metaview 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