§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Oleeo on all 7 criteria.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Oleeo 40 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. Jack & Jill leads every one of the 7 criteria, Oleeo none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Jack & Jill 56 to Oleeo 55. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Oleeo 40) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 48% 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
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Oleeo 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.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2025 | 1995 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Oleeo 40
4.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Oleeo 30
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Oleeo 40
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Oleeo 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Oleeo 45
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Oleeo 55
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Oleeo 55
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Oleeo.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 40 (F) | +9 | +8.3 |
§ 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 | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 10 | 6 | 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; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 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 Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo 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