§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Moonhub on all 7 criteria.
The Sourcing cohort pairing of Jack & Jill and Moonhub comes out 49 to 30 under rubric v1.0, a 19-point lead for Jack & Jill. Jack & Jill leads every one of the 7 criteria, Moonhub none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Jack & Jill 28 to Moonhub 25. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Moonhub 18) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds 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
Moonhub
Moonhub is an AI recruiting platform whose agents (Qualify AI, Engage AI, Monitor AI) search, score, outreach to, and engage candidates across more than a billion public and proprietary profiles, working alongside human expert recruiters who vet candidates before presenting them.
§ The record
Jack & Jill and Moonhub are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | Moonhub |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Moonhub 18
7.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Moonhub 22
3.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Moonhub 30
2.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Moonhub 38
1.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Moonhub 40
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Moonhub 48
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Moonhub 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +18.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +18.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Moonhub.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Moonhub | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 18 | +44 | +7.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 22 | +26 | +3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 38 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 30 (F) | +19 | +18.1 |
§ 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 | Moonhub | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 6 | 7 | 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; Moonhub has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Moonhub, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Moonhub 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